The Potter's Precedent

In Romans 9, in response to the most frequent objection to Calvinism, Paul provides an answer from a potter analogy:

Romans 9:19-23

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 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 ... .

This theme and argument were not original to the Epistle to the Romans, or even to Paul more generally. In fact, this theme is not merely a New Testament theme. It is firmly rooted in the Old Testament.

The outlines for the theme are found first in Job.

Job 4:17-19

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: how much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?

Here we see the basic point emphasized. Man is not in a position to judge his maker. It is not necessarily crystal clear that the "houses of clay" refers to the body as opposed to mud huts, but it becomes clear soon:

Job 10:9

Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?

The reference in Job harkens back to the Creation:

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Man is like pottery in this way - that God made us from the dust of the ground.

Against the backdrop of Job and Genesis (we know Genesis was written by Moses, but we don't know exactly when Job was written), Isaiah provides similar and further elaborated variations on the theme:

Isaiah 29:15-16

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Here the rebellion of the people against God is answered with the potter's clay analogy. They are just his clay - are they really going to deny his existence/power or his wisdom?

And it gets stronger:

Isaiah 45:7-12

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

In this passage, God takes ultimate responsibility for everything. He even says "I ... create evil," not that he is morally culpable for it, but that he decrees it. The potsherds can debate each other, but none of them can stand in judgment over God or demand that God account for his actions toward them. It's as absurd as if a child was to question the authority of his parents to procreate him. God says he is not accountable to man for what he has made.

Moreover, the righteous (like Job) acknowledge their relationship to God as the potter:

Isaiah 64:8

But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

When we see these precedents for Romans 9, the point in Romans 9 becomes clear.  Paul is arguing that the question is impudent.  Man cannot question God's holding man responsible, even though no one can resist the will of God.  That's like a pot saying, "why did you make me this way?" to the potter. Paul affirms that God, like a potter, does have a purpose for his different pots.  Moreover, for Paul that is enough to vindicate the potter.

Occasionally, we are told that some other passage is the precedent for Romans 9.  I would refer to these as faux precedent passages. The most popular of these is in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 18:1-13

The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.

The point of the passage in this case is to emphasize God's mercy in judgment. God is saying that he is free to change the way that Israel is treated, and he offers to do so if they will repent.  There is an aspect of sovereignty here, but this aspect of sovereignty has to do with God's ability to accept repentance.  Such a point does not fit with the objection about why God finds fault despite having an irresistible will.

We see a similar theme in some of the non-canonical inter-testamental books.

For example, in Sirach we find the following expression, which seems to be drawn from Jeremiah:

Sirach 33:13

As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.

There is also an interesting passage in Wisdom.  This passage, on its own, has some nice linguistic similarities to the Romans passage.  However, in context the point being made is totally different, namely about the absurdity of idolatry.  Don't worship a statue: it could just as easily have been a chamberpot.

Wisdom 15:7

For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.

Still it provides the intuition behind the apostle's argument: the potter is sovereign over the clay the same way that God is sovereign over mankind.  Just as it would be absurd for a chamberpot to complain about its duties, seeing as it wasn't consulted regarding what it was going to be, so it is absurd for men to complain that God's showing mercy on whom He will, and hardening others is somehow unfair.

-TurretinFan

Finally, I can Agree with Peter Enns about Something

"You and I Have a Different God, I think," is the title of Enns' post, and he goes on to state that "I think we have a different God." In that much, I think he's right.

He claims:

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

But my God declares, by the mouth of Jude: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3)

I don't adopts Enns' caricature of our position, but even his caricature highlights the difference between us.  Enns does not think that the history of Genesis 1 is true history.  He does not believe that God created the world in six days.  If he does not believe what is plainly stated, should we be surprised that he doesn't appreciate debate over fine points of theology?

-TurretinFan

The Little Problem for the Shroud of Turin

John 20:4-8

So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Steve Ray is promoting yet another attempt to bolster the Shroud of Turin as well as a poem in its honor. I'm sure that the Shroud is good for Steve Ray's pilgrimage business, but the inconvenient truth is that the shroud cannot possibly be real. Christ's head was wrapped separately from the rest of his body.

It was a little disappointing to see that Greg Koukl and Gary Habermas were promoting the Shroud as well (link to mp3 courtesy of Jason Engwer). I note that Jason seems to think that Haberbmas addressed John 20, but if you listen to the podcast, I think you won't find it addressed.

There are plenty of other objections. C-14 dating places the shroud in the middle ages. Jesus was wrapped with spices.

John 19:39-42

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

The shroud is about 14 ft long. The way it appears to have been arranged around a body is by being placed one full body length under and then over the feet and back up to the head. This is a very odd way of wrapping a body, particularly if the body is being bound together with a significant amount of spices. One would expect a wrapping more like that of a mummy, rather than a simple sandwich. Indeed, ὀθονίοις is plural, suggesting that multiple sheets of linen were used for wrapping the body, rather than a single sheet.

So, we can be sure that the shroud is a hoax, whether that hoax is a medieval forgery or something else.

-TurretinFan

Response to Paul Owen Regarding Mormons and those in Rome

In response to Dr. James White's comments on whether those in the Roman commmunion and in the LDS church are saved, Paul Owen responded:

Mormons do NOT deny that Jesus is the God-man who died for our sins and rose again. They affirm all those points explicitly. And I see no reason to deny that many devoted followers of Christ can be found within the ranks of the LDS church.

Where to begin?  No, Mormons do not believe Jesus was the God-man in the orthodox sense of that term.  They do not believe in the hypostatic union.  No, Mormons do not hold that Jesus died for our sins in the orthodox sense of that term, they think "Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins." (source)  In fact the doctrines of incarnation and the atonement are two important points of difference between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism - not to mention the denial of the Father's true divinity, in the sense of being God from all eternity.

One reason (of many) to deny that there are many devoted followers of Christ in the LDS church is that the LDS church does not teach its followers the historical Jesus.  There may be followers of Christ who are very deceived for a time, but the fruit of the Spirit would include an opening of their eyes to the manifest error of the LDS church.

P.O. continued:

Of course Roman Catholics are being saved! (I think it is better to put it that way and to say “is saved”.) Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, who believes in Christ, and “abides” in his body (through divinely appointed channels of grace) is being saved. The notion that God would exclude a person from heaven because they formally deny that faith is the “sole” instrument of their justification is absurd, and turns God into some sort of petty cosmic theology professor, who is more concerned with a person’s lexicon than the state of their heart. Anyone who can read the rich devotional writings of Pope Benedict XVI and conclude that this is not a true follower of Christ is spiritually tone deaf.

No man can serve two masters.  The fictional Mary of Rome's imagination is one master - the God of the Bible is another.  It is plain that Benedict XVI is devoted to the former (here are three recent examples), therefore it is clear that he is not devoted to the latter, even if he attempts to worship God along side his idols.

The point is not that Christians are saved by perfect doctrine, but that one must trust in Christ alone for salvation - and most of those with whom I've interacted in the Roman communion are not doing that.  God is a Jealous God, his name is Jealous.  They trust in "Mary" (not the historical one - but the one they imagine can hear their prayers), they trust in their "saints," and they even trust in their church and their pope.  They are encouraged to trust in their works to ensure their final justification.  That's building one's house on the sand.

Does that mean all those in the Roman communion are lost?  No.  It just means that in order to be saved, one must trust in Christ alone, which means not following what the Roman magisterium and Roman heirarchy practice and preach.

I won't even go into the problems that P.O. himself has with his soteriology, beyond pointing out that it is plain that he does not hold to sola fide in the traditional Reformed sense of the term, no matter what his allegiance at the moment may be (he claims to be Anglican).

Ultimately none of us knows the inner secrets of a person’s soul and walk with Christ. We can only judge them by their fruit (and yes, heresy and false teachings can enter into that judgment). But any definition of “Christian” which would exclude the vast majority of Christians prior to the formalization of the Reformation slogans and definitions of justification is obviously short-sighted!

The vision trouble seems to be on P.O.'s side, for he has not properly seen the argument before him.  We are not saying that people need to perfect doctrine, but rather that they must trust in Christ alone for salvation.  People were doing that since the Apostolic era and people were doing that before Martin Luther was a twinkle in his father's eye.

The real problem is defining Christianity by self-labeling, rather than by the Gospel.  There will be many on judgment day who will say "Lord Lord!" but Christ will tell them, "I never knew you."

-TurretinFan

Third Marian Strike for Benedict XVI

Proceeding backward in time (from part 1 and part 2), we come now to a third instance of Mariolatry in Benedict XVI's visit to Cuba.  According to the Vatican Information System, in an address on March 26, 2012, Benedict XVI stated:

... since the beginning she has been very much present in the personal lives of Cubans as well as in the great events of the nation ... for she is honoured by all as the true mother of the Cuban people.  Devotion to the "Virgen Mambisa" has sustained the faith and inspired the defence and promotion of all that gives dignity to the human condition and fundamental rights, and it continues to do so today with ever greater strength, giving visible witness to the fruitfulness of the preaching of the Gospel in these lands, and to the profound Christian roots which shape the deepest identity of the Cuban soul. Following in the footsteps of countless pilgrims down the centuries, I too wish to go to El Cobre to kneel at the feet of the Mother of God, to thank her for her concern for all her Cuban children, and to ask her to guide the future of this beloved nation in the ways of justice, peace, freedom and reconciliation ...

Note that Benedict XVI confesses to the desire not only to go to the idol at El Cobre, but also to assume a posture of worship, namely that of kneeling.  He advocates religious devotion to the idol.  Moreover, he also, again, confesses to a desire to attempt to communicate with her including not just a request for guidance, but also thanks - something that cannot reasonably be interpreted as a request for her to pray.

- TurretinFan

More Marian Madness from Benedict XVI

Again, according to the Vatican Information Service (VIS), on March 27, 2012, Benedict XVI gave an address at the "Shrine of 'Nuestra Senora de la Caridad del Cobre'," (Our Lady of Charity of Cobre) (the idol I mentioned in my previous post).  In that address he stated:

Let all those you meet know, whether near or far, that I have entrusted to the Mother of God the future of your country, advancing along the ways of renewal and hope, for the greater good of all Cubans. I have also prayed to the Virgin for the needs of those who suffer, of those who are deprived of freedom, those who are separated from their loved ones or who are undergoing times of difficulty. I have placed in her Immaculate Heart young people, that they may be authentic friends of Christ and that they may not succumb to things which bring sadness in their wake.

Notice that Benedict expressess faith in Mary ("I have entrusted to the Mother of God the future of your country") and admits to praying to her (" I have also prayed to the Virgin for ..."). 

VIS also reports:

The Holy Father paused in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament then before the image of the Virgin. He lit a candle and recited the prayer of the Virgin of Charity, the Jubilee Year ritual by which pilgrims may obtain plenary indulgence.

Notice not only the idoltry in terms of worshiping the physical elements as though they were God, but as well the idolatry in terms of Mariolatry.  There is a direct parallel there.  First, he pauses to pray before what he imagines to be God and then he pauses to pray before the image of Mary.  Moreover, he recited the "prayer of the Virgin of Charity," which is often referred to as the Prayer to Our Lady of Charity (here is a copy).

Highlights from the prayer:

Most Holy Mother of Charity, who came to us as a messenger of peace across the sea, you are the Mother of all.
...
To your motherly heart we entrust our desires and hopes, our work and our prayers.
...
We place ourselves under your mantle of protection!
...

Notice that this prayer seems to be both the basis for Benedict XVI's "entrust" comments above as well as his "mantle of protection" claim and his "presence" claim we mentioned in the previous post.  But where is the truth? This is nothing other than idolatry, even if he claims (as he does) that devotion to Mary should lead one to devotion to Jesus, and even if he acknowledges Jesus to be the Rock ("I encourage all the sons and daughters of this dear country to continue to build their lives on the firm rock which is Jesus Christ ...").  I would encourage them to do that too, but not by reference to the lying idol of Cobre in a shrine in Cuba, but in reference to the inspired Word of God found in the Bible.

-TurretinFan

(Real ?) Presence of Mary - So Saith Benedict XVI

As reported by the Vatican Information Service, on March 28, 2012, in a farewell address in Cuba, Benedict XVI stated:

As I bid you a heartfelt adios, I ask our Lady of Charity of El Cobre to protect all Cubans under her mantle, to sustain them in the midst of their trials and to obtain from Almighty God the grace that they most desire. Hasta siempre, Cuba, a land made beautiful by the maternal presence of Mary. 

This is not simply a request for Mary to pray for the people of Cuba.  It is specifically asking Mary to

• protect the Cubans under her mantle, 
• sustain them in the midst of their trials, and
• obtain from Almighty God the grace that they most desire.

Perhaps the third item could be viewed simply as asking Mary to pray, but the other two are asking for Mary to provide sustainance and the specific protection of Mary.  But how can Mary protect?

Here we have the most interesting part of Benedict XVI's comment.  He alleges that Mary's "maternal presence" is in Cuba, and that this "maternal presence" makes Cuba beautiful.

But where is the historical Mary?  Her body is an unknown grave and her soul is in heaven.  She is not present, body or soul, in Cuba.

Lady of Charity of El Cobre is an idol, it's not the historical Mary.  That idol has no power to bring the spirit of Mary down from heaven.  In fact, it has no power of its own at all.  It had to be rescued from the waters of Nipe Bay in 1606 by three fishermen.  It is the Cubans who are the hope of the idol (if it even had a spirit to hope!), not the idol that is the hope of the Cubans.  They rescued it, but it can never rescue them.

And neither is Mary, either real or imagined, a hope for the Cubans.  She is a spirit who has entered into glory, awaiting the resurrection of the body.  She does not have a mantle of protection to offer.  The only hope for the Cubans - as for all mankind - is the son of the real Mary, namely Jesus Christ the righteous.  He alone is the rock of our salvation, for he is not merely man but Emmanuel, God with us.

Cuba is a land made beautiful by God's mercy and kindness.  It is wrong for Benedict XVI to attribute this to Mary or her imagined presence.

-TurretinFan

Picking the Low-hanging Cherries

Darryl Hart has posted an article (2K Cherries 2Hot 2Handle) responding to my friend Lane Keister's decision to stop discussing two kingdoms theology on his blog.  Unfortunately, the article serves as an illustration of the problem that led my friend to stop discussing the topic.

Hart seems to have a fundamental problem distinguishing argument from personality.  Read his post.  You'll find that after the first paragraph it's all about attacking his critics - not for their views - but attacking their integrity.  Here are some examples:

• "some who object to 2k have so made up their minds about the idea and its proponents that they will hear nothing in defense of the doctrine; they won’t even read the books written on 2k"
  
• "two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept"
  
• "In which case, they have no more claim to Calvin as a standard for religion and politics than 2kers do. Yet, here’s the key. 2kers are honest. They actually admit that they disagree with Calvin."
  
• "And this means that the critics of 2k are either unaware of how little standing the original WCF chapter 23 or Belgic Art. 36 has in conservative Reformed churches. Or if they know of confessional revision and use the original documents to denounce 2kers, they are dishonest."
  
• "Or perhaps they are simply foolish (and impolitely so)."

(and that's not to mention the comment box, where one finds jewels of charity such as "You philosophers sure are clever (but undermedicated).")

I'm sure this post will sail over Hart's head.  In the post itself, he calls attention to the fact that I have previously pointed out to him that his approach of attacking the person of the critics (for example, accusing them of not being gracious) is ad hominem.  His response is that "I do not see how this point is beside the point."

But what about those two "undeniable historical developments" that form the only substance to his post?

The first of the alleged "undeniable historical developments" is "that the critics of 2k do not advocate the execution of adulterers or heretics."  There are three layers of rebuttal to this point.  First, not all critics of E2k refuse to advocate the execution of adulterers and blasphemers (one assumes that's what Hart means, since that's what Calvin advocated).  Second, Calvin himself seems to have thought that in some cases the penalties should be dependent on the circumstances, including the penalty for adultery (See ICR IV:20:16). Third, whether or not critics of E2k are themselves little clones of Calvin is quite the beside the point.   No critics of E2k claim to be clones of Calvin, and yet whether or not they are clones of Calvin they can still observe that E2k advocates have so radically departed from Calvin that Calvin's views are treated as intolerable and absurd.  There's a difference between the sons of Calvin and the sons of the Quakers, even if neither is identical to Calvin.

The second of the alleged "undeniable historical developments" is "that all of the Reformed churches that belong to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council have rejected the teaching of both the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate."  In order to check this claim, I carefully studied the standards of the hundreds, dozens, twelve denominations in NAPARC.  Hart's assessment is wrong.  The OPC and PCA both have not rejected the teachings of the WCF on the civil magistrate, they have broader standards, so that one is not required to hold those views (as already demonstrated here), although their standards do rule out E2k (as explained here).  The ERQ subscribes to the original WCF, but permits liberty of conscience on several sections, including the sections that E2k finds most objectionable.  The FRCNA states that they fully subscribe to the original three forms of unity (including the Belgic Confession).  Should I go on?  At best, the RPCNA could be said to have "rejected" them, based on the ambiguous wording of their "testimony" that serves as an interpretive guide to the standards.  (Of course, not all conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America are in NAPARC, but even with Hart's cherry-picking ...).

Now, Hart makes a fuss about the fact that he's an historian ("From the perspective of this 2k advocate who also doubles as a historian, two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept — sort of like denying that the North defeated the South in 1865; you may not like it, but how do you deny what happened at Appomattox?").  But what's wrong?  Is Hart just too lazy to research things?  Surely he's not intentionally lying to people while bolstering his claims with his reputation as an historian (some of his historical work is, in fact, well respected).  So, what then?

One answer is that Hart is simply avoiding addressing the actual knotty issues of E2k as compared both with Scripture and with the Reformed tradition with respect to which E2k represents a significant departure.  Until he gets his head straight, his comments and reviews will continue to be the low-hanging fruit in the discussion, but since he's one of the most vocal advocates, they will need to be picked.

-TurretinFan

Pastor Wells' Review of "The Escondido Theology"

Daniel Wells, a self-described "young pastor," has posted an interesting review of Frame's "The Escondido Theology."  It is interesting, because I think both Frame's supporters and supporters of E2k will find things in it they won't like.  So, perhaps this provides a good example of a "balanced" review of the book.

Westminster West and Frame's Point 27

Frame's point 27 (from this list) of Escondido Theology is this: "The Sabbath pertains only to worship, not to daily work. So worship should occur on the Lord’s Day, but work need not cease."

Meredith Kline wrote: 

Moreover, since the Sabbath is a sign of sanctification marking that which receives its imprint as belonging to God's holy kingdom with promise of consummation, the Sabbath will have relevance and application at any given epoch of redemptive history only in the holy dimension(s) of the life of the covenant people. Thus, after the Fall, not only will the Sabbath pertain exclusively to the covenant community as a holy people called out of the profane world, but even for them the Sabbath will find expression, in a nontheocratic situation, only where they are convoked in covenant assembly, as the ekklesia-extension of the heavenly assembly of God's Sabbath enthronement. That is, Sabbath observance will have to do only with their holy cultic (but not their common cultural) activity.

That seems to pretty clearly correspond to Frame's accusation.  Kline is not the strongest advocate on this point, although his position does seem to underlie other E2k positions.  For example, Lee Irons argues as follows:

I am in complete agreement with Kline's interpretation of the function of the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant, thus limiting its observance to the covenant community. I also agree with his theocratic analysis of the Sabbath in the pre-fall and Mosaic economies. But I have reservations about his exclusive application of the new covenant Sabbath sign to the cultic activity of the assembled church. The implication seems to be that our Sabbath duties are exhaustively fulfilled by attending corporate worship. Furthermore, not only are Christians permitted to engage in cultural activity on the Lord's Day outside of public worship, they are positively required to do so. For to rest from cultural activity on the Lord's Day would be to place the holy stamp of eschatological consummation upon non-holy cultural activity, thus profaning the Sabbath.

Ironically, those whose Sabbath practice is more in line with the Puritan approach of resting all the day from "worldly employments and recreations" are the greatest violators of the Sabbath, and are theoretically subject to church discipline. I doubt that Kline would want to see his view implemented in our churches with such unyielding disciplinary rigor. But even if strict Sabbatarians are permitted the freedom to practice the Puritan Sabbath according to the light of their conscience, it still does not ring true to say that resting from cultural activity on the Lord's Day is sinful. I want to avoid laying heavy burdens upon God's people - whether it be the intolerable yoke of the strict Sabbatarians who say that we must rest from any and all cultural activity, or an inflexible application of Kline's exegetical insights in which the church's freedom from the Mosaic Sabbath is distorted into a new legalism requiring that we engage in cultural activity on the Lord's Day.

Irons is not just arguing that Kline's position implies that men may work seven days (without excuse) but that they must!  This position contradicts Scripture (particularly the 4th commandment) and also lies outside the bounds of the Confession.

Note that Jason Stellman (one of Frame's targets) does not follow Kline or Irons' extrapolation of Kline, but instead takes a more traditional approach. Stellman quotes (approvingly, with a qualification):

"The other difference between Stellman and some of the other Escondido theologians is that he takes issue with Kline's view of the Sabbath. Kline believed that Sabbath observance in the new covenant pertains to the Lord's Day worship service alone. He thought that the Sabbath pertained only to what is 'holy,' and in the new covenant holiness pertains only to worship, not to work. Therefore we should not rest weekly from the tasks we pursue on the other six days.

"Stellman, however, argues that since the Lord's Day is a day, and not just a few hours, we ought to withdraw from cultural tasks on that entire day (pp. 57-59)."

Stellman's qualification is that he thinks he is not alone amongst E2k advocates. He writes:

... I don't remember a single professor during my three years at Westminster Seminary California ever agreeing with Kline's view of the Sabbath, either privately or in class.

I will note, however, that Kline is listed as amongst the Faculty Emeriti in the current academic catalog.  Escondido is not particularly active in distancing themselves from Kline.

I know that Pastor Stellman sometimes stops by this blog.  I wonder whether he would be willing to confirm that he agrees with "Kline's interpretation of the function of the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant, thus limiting its observance to the covenant community." (Irons' description)  If so, then we may be able to at least identify one of the core principles of E2k, with three distinct branches built on that foundation.

-TurretinFan

Joel McDurmon Reviews "The Escondido Theology"

Mr. McDurmon has provided a very interesting review of "The Escondido Theology," as well as of some of the responses and context of the work.  McDurmon made an excellent observation relative to Godfrey's comment: "All of us on the faculty of Westminster Seminary California are shocked and saddened by John Frame’s book, The Escondido Theology."  McDurmon points out: "Most of the chapters in Frame’s book have been posted as review articles online for months, even years."  It's hard to see how the book could "shock," given that it is consistent with the criticism that Frame has been making for a while.

-TurretinFan

An Additional Evidence Regarding the "Dictionary Definition" and Compatibilism

During my recent debate on Compatible Free Will as opposed to Libertarian Free Will, which was supposed to be about whether the Bible teaches Libertarian Free Will and ended up being about whether the word "choose" requires Libertarian Free Will, I omitted to provide an illustration that I think would be helpful.

My esteemed disputant has argued that "possibilities" in order to be "possible" must be possible in a libertarian sense.  This is certainly not the case, but I failed to provide one of the easiest and best illustrations of this point in the heat of the debate.

The illustration is simple: in common speech we use "possibilities" to refer to things that we know full well are mechanically deterministic.  Thus, for example, we speak about the possibility of drawing a "face card" as the next card in the deck, even though we know that it is already mechanically determined what card will be drawn next.

From our perspective, there are up to 52 possible next cards.  In reality, only the actual card sitting on top of the deck will be drawn.  The other 51 possibilities are not an illusion, they just reflect our ignorance.

The same kind of linguistic convention applies to our discussion about choice.  Even if our choices are determined, we don't know what has been determined.  Accordingly, from our perspective, there are alternative futures, although in reality God has already determined which of the two possibilities we will select.

This meshes well with my point in the debate that God takes as much credit for the outcome of "lots" (think dice, not real estate) and the choices of animals as God takes for human choices.  In fact, God emphasizes his sovereignty in the last category even more than the other two areas.

Ultimately, as I established in the debate, the question is resolved by the fact that God states both that we choose and that God determines what we choose.

-TurretinFan

"Call No Man 'Father' or 'Teacher'"

One reader of this blog (coming from a Roman perspective, I believe) wrote: "Never mind the fact that Jesus also commands His followers to abstain from calling men "teacher," yet Paul often refers to himself as such. Did the Spirit forget the instructions of the Son? You see, the Lord was not speaking literally. Imagine that!"

The problem with that response is that it only gets you half way.  The other half is, "what did Jesus mean by his saying?" One answer could be, Jesus meant not to have teachers endowed with the kind of authority that the Roman bishop claims for himself.

Same thing for "call no man Father."  One answer could be that Jesus meant we should not have someone that we treat the way that Roman Catholics treat their "Holy Father" in Rome.

In fact, of course, the kinds of abuses in 1st century Judea were probably far less grand than Rome's claims.  But certainly if anyone could violate the spirit of what Jesus' words mean, then Rome is it.  If Rome's treatment does not qualify, what possibly could?

Earlier in the thread, in response to a comment about not calling any man father, the same commenter had pointed to a tract published at the "Catholic Answers" site (link).  This tract makes the mistake of actually trying to go the rest of the way.

The tract is not far off when it states:

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

But which one of those scribes or Pharisees ever claimed to be the head of the whole church and father to all believers?  Which one of those scribes or Pharisees ever claimed to teach infallibly?  Their abuse pales in comparison to the abuse that Rome offers.  If what the scribes and Pharisees did is to be condemned, how much more what Rome has done and continues to do!

-TurretinFan

Hart's Responses to Frame

Darryl Hart has offered several responses to Frame's book. The first response I'll consider is one Hart titled, "More Than You Bargained For?" in which Hart responds to Frame's comment: "They are also motivated by a desire to oppose what they regard as theological corruptions of the Reformation doctrine, particularly the views of N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and the movement called Federal Vision." Hart responds: "So I’m to imagine that using the law-gospel distinction in opposition to Shepherd, Wright, and the Federal Vision is extreme?" But this is a bizarre non sequitur. That is not what Frame wrote, nor is it a reasonable inference from what Frame wrote. Frame didn't say or imply that merely using the law-gospel distinction in those disputes is "extreme."  Even if Frame thinks the use is extreme, one certainly cannot conclude from Frame's line that he's saying that such extremity is due to the fact of who is being opposed or the tool that is being used to oppose.

While there is a lot more copy in Darryl's response, there is no other direct interaction with what Frame wrote.

That's rather the same as what we find in the next response we will consider, one titled: "Authors, Editors, and Readers."  In this post, Hart quotes Frame thus:

Too often, in ethical debate, Christians sound too much like unbelievers. They reason as if they and their opponents are both operating on the same principle: human rational autonomy. I believe they almost inevitably give this false impression when they are reasoning according to natural law alone. Only when the Christian goes beyond natural law and begins to talk about Jesus as the resurrected king of kings does his witness become distinctively Christian. At that point, of course, he is reasoning from Scripture, not from natural revelation alone.

Then, after providing an example of a few paragraphs from Leithart where Leithart does not mention Christ or the Scriptures, Hart states:

Now, the additional point is not that Leithart is a hypocrite or that Frame is selective in the writers whom he throws under the Lordship of Christ bus. It is instead that authors write for editors and audiences and need to couch their language and arguments in terms acceptable to the editors and plausible to the readers. This isn’t a matter of the right apologetic method or a consistent epistemology. It is a case of either getting published or not, of being understood or not. If Leithart had come to the editors of First Things with arguments in a distinctively neo-Calvinist idiom, they would likely not have published him.

Perhaps that means that Christians should not write for religiously, epistemologically, or the-politically mixed publications. Indeed, it does seem that Frame’s arguments run directly in the fundamentalist direction of not having anything to do with associations where a believer might have to hide his faith under a bushel (NO!). But if Christian authors, even neo-Calvinist inclined ones, are going to write for publications not edited by Andrew Sandel or Ken Gentry or the faculty of Dort College, they may need to use rhetoric and arguments that are not pedal-to-the-metal Christian.

For this reason, I am surprised that John Frame can’t appreciate why 2k writers sound the way they do, or appeal to natural law arguments the way they do.

But Frame is not expressing merely a lack of appreciation, but disapproval.  Hart's response that unless Christians reason as if they are both operating on the same principle, they will not get published or not be successful in persuading their opponents in the ethical debate.  For Hart, this pragmatic consideration trumps Frame's proposed principled consideration.  Hart provides no further justification for this trumping.  Indeed his comments are telling: "This isn’t a matter of the right apologetic method or a consistent epistemology. It is a case of either getting published or not, of being understood or not."  Thus, for Hart, the pragmatic of being published/understood trumps the principle of correct apologetics and epistemology.

It gets worse.  Hart identified his post, "The Grandaddy of Reformed Anti-Lutheranism," as one of his responses to Frame (here).  But that post begins by trying to address Norman Shepherd: "Before Shepherd, theologians like John Murray or Louis Berkhof would not have objected to the Lutheran doctrine of justification. But Shepherd did."  The way in which the Lutheran doctrine of justification differs from the Reformed doctrine lies in the scope of the atonement, and Reformed teachers have long criticized Lutheran views on the scope of the atonement.  If Shepherd objected to justification by faith alone, he was objecting to the Reformed doctrine, the Lutheran doctrine, and the doctrine of a variety of the fathers of the church.  He wasn't objecting to anything distinctively Lutheran.

Hart then essentially accuses Frame of preparing the way for Shepherd with his previous book:"John Frame’s book, Evangelical Reunion (for starters) would be ironically one example of that New School turn among conservative Presbyterians away from Old School practices and convictions."  No justification is provided for this accusation.

Hart then alleges that Frame endorses Shepherd: "I wonder if John Frame’s endorsement of Shepherd actually includes some recognition of the distance between him and Shepherd on the Reformed identity and militant character of the OPC, with Shepherd embodying one strand of Machen’s warrior children and Frame exhibiting boredom with fighting period."

But where is the argument?  There is none.  The whole point of the post is to try to tie Frame to the Norman Shepherd controversy, and to somehow suggest that Frame's criticism of Lutheran influence on Escondido thought is somehow contrary to justification by faith alone (which confirms point 28 of Frame's 32 points).

Things looked a little more hopeful in Hart's, "Is the Gospel Sufficient to GOVERN Culture?" but let's see what transpired.

Hart begins with the title of the chapter (which corresponds to this article) and even supplies some of Frame's 32 points. Hart then goes on to complain that it is odd to speak about "governing culture" essentially because culture seems to be organic. Hart considers "language" as an example of culture, and suggests that it cannot really be "governed." This is an odd choice on Hart's part, because it does not appear that Frame actually argues that language should be "governed."

In the next section, Hart characterizes Frame's view as being that "the Bible is a surer foundation for ethical reflection than general revelation" (and provides a quotation from Frame). But Hart provides no meaningful rebuttal to this point. Instead, Hart complains that "the Bible has prevented Presbyterians like himself from rejecting the regulative principle of worship" and asserts that "The Bible of the Puritans is not cogent for Frame." These points are both ad hominem and red herrings, and consequently doubly illegitimate. Frame's view on the RPW is a mistake, but it is not a mistake that is relevant to this argument. Only in the final sentence does Hart actually make a legitimate point: he observes that just because "natural law argumentation fails a test of logic does not prove that the Bible is sufficient to GOVERN culture." That's a true observation, but of course Frame argues for the Bible's sufficiency after pointing out general revelation's insufficiency. So, this would be a compelling criticism only if Frame said nothing more.

But Frame does say more, as Hart quotes (Hart removed the term "world view" but I'll present the whole quotation):

Cogent and persuasive ethical reasoning presupposes a world view and standards of judgment. It is not easy to argue these from nature alone. For Christians, these standards come from Scripture. So apart from Scripture ethical argument loses its cogency and often its persuasiveness. Nonbelievers, of course, won’t usually accept Scripture as authoritative. But they may at least respect an argument that is self-conscious about its epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions.

Hart's response?

I doubt it. Actually, I know such respect won’t be forthcoming since heaps of ridicule have been directed at evangelicals for the last thirty years for trying such w-wish arguments. Maybe Frame thinks a graduate seminar in philosophy is the context for these disputes. If so, he forgets the verb GOVERN. And when unbelievers confront people who want the GOVERNORS to implement religious teaching in politics and cultural standards, they get a little testy.

So that's it? Hart doubts that unbelievers "may at least respect an argument that is self-conscious about its epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions"? I think Hart has too low a view of conscience and the light of nature. It is the conscience and the light of nature that persuade people to grudgingly acknowledge, "at least he's consistent," even if they disagree with someone. The heaps of ridicule Hart identified are not directed at the arguments, but at the world view. Typical Americans do seem to have bought into an E2k view of radical separation of church and state (really, it is the other way around, E2k picked it up from the world), but even typical Americans may respect an an argument that is self-conscious about its epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions, even if they don't know what "epistemological," "metaphysical," or even "presuppositions" mean. Ordinary people get that inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Hart then departs on a tangent regarding something Leithart wrote and continues with another two paragraphs that lack any argument worth noting. Then we come to Hart's core argument:

So how sufficient is the Bible to govern a society composed of diverse religious adherents and non-believers? We already know that the Bible has not been sufficient to yield a unified church. Now it’s supposed to give us a platform for cultural and political cogency and coherence in a diverse and religiously free society?

First, I'm not sure whether a society ruled by the Bible would be as "religiously free" as Hart would like. In fact, I suspect that's a logical impossibility given Hart's view of religious freedom. Second, though, for Hart to deny that the Bible is sufficient to govern the church is simply for Hart to demonstrate how far outside the Westminster Standards his position is. Now, Hart's comment could be re-interpreted to mean that although Scripture does sufficiently govern the church, the result is not a unified church. But if that's the case, then what of it? One world government is neither God's will for the church or for the state.

Hart then asks: "How are those hostile to God going to submit to GOVERNMENT based on the Bible?" The answer should be obvious from Romans 13. The power of the sword is the way that those who are hostile to God submit to laws that come from God. Note that Hart casts his question in terms of the Bible, but the light of nature comes from God too. So, the question is one that Hart should have an answer for, yet he claims he's "still lacking a decent answer."

Hart next asks: "doesn’t a proposal for the Bible’s sufficiency as a rule for culture and society mean ultimately that only believers will GOVERN?" The answer to this question should be obvious too. Just look at Old Testament Israel. Very often the nation was ruled by unbelievers.

Hart makes an interesting argument. He claims: "And then they walk over the cliff of liberalism and deny that the Bible is first and foremost not a book of ethics but of redemption." Hart, however, has forgotten his catechism. What do the Scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man (Shorter Catechism, Q/A 3 (and Larger Catechism Q/A 5 identically). Hart quotes Machen, but Machen was opposing liberals who wanted to excerpt from Scripture, to suggest that "the Bible contain any hope for humanity apart from" redemption through faith in the Son. So, Hart is misapplying Machen's comments.

Indeed, Hart states: "If the mere reading of Scripture could lead to such a conclusion, imagine appealing to the Bible for running a society that includes believers and non-believers." This does not follow, however, for Machen's objection was not simply to reading the Bible, but "reading of selected passages from the Bible, in which Jews and Catholics and Protestants and others can presumably agree."

Hart's conclusion is strange: "The lesson is that 2k (aka SCET) is really more faithful to Reformed teachings (which are biblical) than are 2k critics’ constant charges of infidelity and deficiency." Yet Hart's appeal to Machen was mistaken, and that was his only appeal to "Reformed teachings." Moreover, Hart didn't provide any demonstration that E2k views are biblical.

Hart attempts to establish his point through a false dichotomy: "Those who think the Bible sufficient to GOVERN culture or society must either form a political body comprised only of church members or they must cut and paste biblical teachings to make it fit a religiously mixed society." The latter proposal, though, is not on the table - and the former proposal (while it might be nice) is not necessary.

The final sentence is possibly the least helpful: "Either way (Massachusetts Bay or liberal Protestantism), we’ve been there and done that. Time for 2k’s critics to come up with their own proposals for GOVERNING and transforming culture that are not blinded to their own insufficiencies." But, of course, a specific proposal for governing is different from the general proposition that the Bible is sufficient to govern. This fact seems completely lost on Hart. Moreover, Hart's treatment of Massachusetts Bay colony is simply dismissive. It's clear he does not like that kind of regime, but his personal dislike for it (or for the kind of society it resulted in) is not a principled argument against it.

In short, while this post from Hart was better than some of the others in terms of at least providing some very general arguments, it still comes up dramatically short in terms of providing any kind of serious response to what Frame has written - addressing at most a couple of paragraphs of the chapter.

In a post titled, "Love that Bob," Hart continues the insubstantial critiques, sadly.  He has the chance to address the connection between Kline's views and those of E2k, but swings and misses.  First he observes that he himself personally has not read the whole "Kingdom Prologue," by Kline.  Yet one can be influenced by Kline's teachings without directly reading Kline (and certainly without reading that specific work by Kline).  Second, he claims that Westminster California's "real source" of "alleged uniqueness" comes from W. Robert Godfrey (whose response we've already addressed).  He then goes on to claim that Godfrey influenced the students of the seminary for good, in terms of getting them to go back to their roots.  There is no real interaction with Frame at all in the post, despite it being identified by Hart as one of the responses to Frame's book.

And that's not to mention the posts: "Rich but not Robust" (in which Hart dissed Frame for not getting a bigger publisher to publish his book) and "Speaking of Obscure Publishers" (in which he tries to tie Frame to Shepherd's errors, while again dissing Frame for not getting a famous enough publisher for "The Escondido Theology").  In fact, the latter strategy seems to be a theme for Hart.  Much more time is spent trying to associate Frame with Leithart or Shepherd than actually dealing with the arguments that Frame presents.  In the latter post, Hart seems mystified that someone like Frame would care about scholarship, given that Shepherd has serious errors.

There are a few other responses from Hart that were directed toward Frame, but they follow the general pattern laid out above.  Of course, if someone finds (anywhere) a response by Hart to Frame that is actually a serious set of arguments that aim to rebut or refute Frame's arguments, I would be glad to see them.

- TurretinFan

Thomas Adam on Idols and Idolatry

The following is an excerpt from a sermon by Thomas Adam:

Idols.—Idol, in Greek, signifies a resemblance or representation, and differs not from image in Latin; both at first taken in a good sense, but the corruption of times hath bred a corruption of words, and idol is now only taken for the image of a false god. Every idol is an image, but every image is not an idol; but every image made and used for religious purposes is an idol . The images of God are idols, wherewith Popery abounds. An old man, sitting in a chair, with a triple crown on his head, and pontifical robes on his back, a dove hanging at his beard, and a crucifix in his arms, is their image of the Trinity. This picture sometime serves them for a god in their churches, and sometime for a sign at their taphouses; so that it is a common saying in many of their cities, ' Such a gentleman lies at the Trinity, and his servants at God's Head.' This they seem to do as if they would in some sort requite their Maker: because God made man according to his image, therefore they, by way of recompense, will make God according to man's image. But this certainly they durst not do, without putting the second commandment out of their catechisms, and the whole decalogue out of their consciences.

I intend no polemical discourse of this point, by examining their arguments: that business is fitter for the school than the pulpit. And, O God ! that either school or pulpit in Christendom should be troubled about it!—that any man should dare to make that a question which the Lord hath so plainly and punctually forbidden! Beside the iniquity, how grievous is the absurdity! How is a body without a spirit like to a spirit without a body? a visible picture like an invisible nature? How would the king take it in scorn to have his picture made like a weasel or a hedge-hog! and yet the difference betwixt the greatest monarch and the least emmet is nothing to the distance betwixt a finite and an infinite. If they allege, with the Anthropomorphites, that the Scripture attributes to God hands and feet and eyes, why therefore may they not represent him in the same forma? But we say, the Scripture also speaks of his covering us with the shadow of his wings; why therefore do they not paint him like a bird with feathers? If they say that he appeared to Daniel in this form, because he is there called the 'Ancient of days;' we answer, that God's commandments, and not his apparitions, be rules to us: by the former we shall be judged, and not by the latter. It is mad religion to neglect what he bids us do, and to imitate what he hath done: as if we should despise his laws, and go about to counterfeit his thunder. God is too infinite for the comprehension of our souls, why should we then labour to bring him into the narrow compass of boards and stones? Certainly, that should not be imaged which cannot be imagined. But Christ was a man, why may not his image be made? Some answer, that no man can make an image of Christ without leaving out the chief part of him, which is his divinity. It was the Godhead united to the manhood that makes him Christ: sure this cannot be painted. But why should we make Christ's image without Christ's warrant? The Lord hath forbidden the making of any image, whether of things in heaven, where Christ is, or of things on earth, where Christ was, to worship them. Now, till God revoke that precept, what can authorise this practice?

(Thanks to Matthew Lankford for bringing this to my attention.)

It's not Personal ... therefore not Moral (from Zrim)

Zrim proposed the following interesting argument:

The only thing I can imagine is that you think to behave politically is to behave personally. But when I vote for or against something, or even abstain from any political involvement, I’m not behaving personally morally but politically (or apolitically as the case may be). This is the part where you conflate morality and politics, but do you really think that when I vote against a candidate I am behaving personally or morally against him in the same way I act against a man when I steal his money? On that reasoning there is no way to tell someone who I vote against it was nothing personal but a principled disagreement--everything is personal, which might explain you taking 2k push back so personally.

These sentiments seem to fit well with Frame's point 10 ("The Christian has no biblical mandate to seek changes in the social, cultural, or political order.") but what other way can one make sense of them. It really looks like Zrim is saying that politics is not behavior that is governed by morality. This would provide the explanation for point 10, but how can it possibly be justified? Surely there are matters of indifference in politics, as in any area of life, but politics tends to run into a lot more moral issues than something like plumbing (to pick an E2k favorite). Plumbing can run into moral issues: if someone asks you to tap into their neighbor's water pipe, for example, a godly plumber would decline. Yet, Politics runs into moral issues constantly. And it is because of the moral ramifications that one cannot affirm that Christians lack the law, which mandates that they, when it is in their power, seek to change the social, cultural, or even political order.

-TurretinFan

Negative Constructive

Prologue

If you try to put a square peg in a round hole, you're asking for trouble.  Those two are not compatible shapes.  Their incompatibility can be seen just by looking at their shapes.  The incompatibility of things we can't see is often more difficult to determine.  For example, if we have a square peg and a hole that is "bread box" shaped, we don't know whether they are compatible, because we don't know what a "bread box" shape is.  How could we determine that they are compatible?  Well, if the assembly instructions say to put the square peg in the "bread box" shaped hole, that suggests that they are compatible.  There might be other ways to tell as well, such as if the instructions elsewhere say that a "bread box" shape is round.  We certainly could not just go through the assembly instructions and find all the places where it says the peg is square and stop there.

Introduction
This is a debate about whether the Bible teaches libertarian free will.  My esteemed disputant alleges that the Bible does teach libertarian free will, and I maintain that the Bible teaches compatible free will.  In other words, I'm arguing that the Bible teaches compatible, not so-called "libertarian," free will.  That means that men choose what God has foreordained or determined that they will choose.  It's the kind of free will that Calvinists speak about, and it is the kind of free will that is referred to when the Scriptures speak about "Freewill offerings." (See, for example, Ezra 3:5 "And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD.")

While technically the burden is on the affirmative to demonstrate that the Bible teaches libertarian free will, because of the way that the debate is framed, yet I will still provide good reasons and Biblical evidence for my own position, namely that the Bible teaches that men have wills that can be free, and that the exercise of their wills is foreordained by God.  Since the Bible teaches both, the two are compatible.

There will be seven parts of this speech, three main points for my own positive presentation and four soft spots in the affirmative case.

Since this is a negative speech, I will try to sharpen the focus of the debate by identifying the major areas of weakness in the affirmative case.  Unfortunately, the affirmative case has at least four serious deficiencies.

Main Argument
I. The first area of deficiency is the reliance on contemporary English dictionaries.
A. The first deficiency within this area is that not one of the dictionary definitions actually defines "choose" in such a way as to limit the term "choose" to libertarian freedom.
B. The second deficiency in this area is that if one has only the 20 definitions and nothing more, one should identify the semantic range of the term as encompassing the broadest range of the term, not the narrowest range.
C. The third deficiency in this area is that ultimately what matters when dealing with the usage of a word in an ancient writing is not the contemporary state of the English language but authorial intent of the original writing.
D. A fourth deficiency is that the wrong word has been looked up: instead of looking up just "choose," my esteemed disputant should have looked up "libertarian free will."  The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, edited by Robert Kane, explains that "libertarian theories of free will" are "those which affirm a free will that is incompatible with determinism."  This leads us to the second area of deficiency.

II. The second area of deficiency is that my esteemed disputant has not properly characterized libertarian free will.  He claims "The essence of Libertarian Free Will is the ability to choose something or not.  Imagine you’re in an ice cream shop.  The idea that you can choose chocolate or not is the core notion of  Libertarian Free Will."  The essence of Libertarian Free Will goes beyond merely the ability to choose (which compatibilists affirm as well) to the declaration of incompatibility with determinism.

III. The third area of deficiency is in the area of exegesis.  While the bulk of the verses cited are non-controversial verses that simply say that men deliberate and/or choose (which compatibilists affirm), there is the famous "what more could have been done" question.  One way of looking at this question is that God literally did everything that he could, but he could not have done more, and they still did not choose God.

But is that a credible interpretation?  No, for several reasons.
A. First, it is patently obvious that more could have been done.  Jesus could have personally come to them and raised the dead.  God could have sent even more dramatic signs and wonders.  God could have prolonged their lives like that of Methuselah. 
B. Second, it's not surprising that an inexact way of speaking is being employed, because of the genre.  This verse is found in a song. Songs can speak precisely, of course, but they are also places where poetic license can be more freely granted.
C. Third, it's a double whammy, because the song is recounting a parable.
D. Fourth, there is a far more plain sense of the expression.  The far more plain sense of the expression is that God had done a lot for them, more than they deserved, enough that they cannot complain that God was not generous with them.  That means interpreting the comment as hyperbole, but in this context, that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

IV. The final area of deficiency is in the treatment of compatibility.  My esteemed disputant seems to refer to the Calvinist position as "compatibilist" up front but then puzzles in his conclusion over whether I will say that choosing is compatible with God's decree of providence, with literally no effort to establish the key point that distinguishes compatibilism from incompatibilism, namely whether choice is compatible with divine fore-ordination.

V. But (turning to my own positive points) choice is compatible with divine fore-ordination.  And here are some Scriptures that prove it.

Specifically the Scriptures show that God refers to himself as the cause of some human action, yet the action is still ascribed to humans.  Moreover in seven cases, the humans are blamed with the action, to wit:

1. Pharaoh (Exodus 7:4 and 11:9); 
2. Sihon, King of Heshbon (Deuteronomy 2:30); 
3. Eli's sons (1 Samuel 2:25); 
4. Absolom (2 Samuel 17:14); 
5. Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:15); 
6. Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25:16 & 20); and
7. The Third King (Daniel 11:36)

Perhaps the seventh item is the most illustrative:
Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

On the one hand the king's actions are ascribed to his will, on the other it is alleged that these things are determined.  What would the Bible have to say more than that to establish that free will and determination are compatible?

VI. The fact of compatibility is confirmed from the teachings of exhaustive determination.

A. God takes credit even for random events.
Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

B. God takes credit for the acts of animals, such as the ostrich.
Job 39:16-17
She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not her's: her labour is in vain without fear; because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

C. God takes credit for the decisions of kings.
Proverbs 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

D. God takes credit for the decisions of armies/nations.
Amos 3:6
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

VII. The fact of compatibility is further shown from God's taking credit for free acts and ascribing divine purpose to them

A. God Said that He Intended the Selling of Joseph into Slavery
Genesis 50:20
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

B. Job Ascribes Satan's Temptation to God, and the Spirit Endorses Job's Description
Job 1:20-22
Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,and said, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Job 42:11
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

C. The Actions of the Sanhedrin are Ascribed to God's "Determinate Counsel"
Acts 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Conclusion
We have seen that the Scriptures teach that God refers to himself as the cause of even bad and morally blameworthy acts of men, that God's determination of events is exhaustive, and that God takes credit for free acts and ascribes divine intent to them.  We have also seen that my esteemed disputant's reliance on contemporary English dictionaries is misplaced, that his characterization of libertarian free will is incomplete, that his exegesis is inaccurate, and that his treatment of compatibility vs. incompatibility is virtually non-existent.  He has provided a lot of evidence that the square peg is square, but not that the "bread box" shaped hole is round.  We, on the other hand, have identified several places in the instructions where they are put together.  So, we can conclude that free will as described by the Bible is compatible, not incompatible.

-TurretinFan

Some Verses Regarding Compatible Free Will

The Bible teaches compatible, not so-called "libertarian," free will.  That means that men choose what God has foreordained or determined that they will choose.  It's the kind of free will that Calvinists speak about, and it is the kind of free will that is referred to when the Scriptures speak about "Freewill offerings." (See, for example, Ezra 3:5 "And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD.")

The verses that describe Calvinistic or compatible free will are almost too numerous to recite.  Here are some examples:

1 Samuel 2:25
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.

2 Samuel 17:14
And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom.

1 Kings 12:15
Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

Exodus 7:4
But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Exodus 11:9
And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 2:30
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

2 Chronicles 25:20
But Amaziah would not hear; for it came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom.

Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

2 Chronicles 25:16
And it came to pass, as he talked with him, that the king said unto him, Art thou made of the king's counsel? forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten? Then the prophet forbare, and said, I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this, and hast not hearkened unto my counsel.

Daniel 11:36
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

See also the book of Job.

I could go on and on, but these should do for now.

Response to Todd Bordow on Capital Punishment for Blasphemy

Over at Greenbaggins, Todd Bordow provided an interesting comment. He wrote:

I think I was fairly clear earlier:

the Biblical answer to the injustices of the world and injustice of governments is the Second Coming, not a return to the punishments of the Mosaic Law (theonomy), or enforcing true religion by the sword (theocracy). And because a desire for the state to punish sinners in this life for not following our religion is in conflict with our calling to reach sinners with the gospel, by Biblical command the church’s only mandate concerning unbelievers....

As you are aware, in the Spanish Inquisition, the RC church and Spanish monarchy put what they considered blasphemers to death. I am saying that is wrong in itself, not just wrong when the wrong guys do it.

There are several responses:

a) If it is really wrong in itself, why was it not wrong for Old Testament Israel?
b) If as to (a) one appeals to an "intrusion ethic" that governed Israel, where does Scripture teach this?
c) How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" (by the civil magistrate) in conflict with our calling to reach sinners with the gospel?
d) How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" as to honoring God's name, title, attributes, ordinances, words and works in conflict with such a calling but punishing them for not "following our religion" as to honoring father and mother, not killing, not stealing, and not committing adultery not in conflict?

-TurretinFan

P.S. I should point out that earlier in the same thread, Todd had indeed relied on the Klinean intrusion ethic approach:

Why are we so dead set against the state enforcing the first Table? Our early forefathers notwithstanding, the Biblical answer to the injustices of the world and injustice of governments is the Second Coming, not a return to the punishments of the Mosaic Law, or enforcing true religion by the sword.

But this answer is patently false and contrary to Romans 13. Moreover, this argument on its own terms cannot differentiate between the first and second table. Finally, it remains unestablished that the Mosaic punishments represent an intrusion of the eschaton.

The Escondido Principle of Separation of Christianity and State - Reviewed

I was recently directed to this interesting review of Darryl Hart's book (The book is titled: "A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State"):

Hart thinks the root error of Christians who try to bring their faith into the arena of politics is the failure to understand that it just doesn't fit. Christianity is “essentially a spiritual and eternal faith.” It is “useless” for resolving “America's political disputes” and, because of its intolerance of other faiths, “impractical if not damaging to public life.” Christian evangelicals of both left and right come in for criticism in Hart's book, but the left—he includes Jimmy Carter and Jim Wallis in this category—gets blamed mainly for “lighting the fire of the culture wars,” thus legitimizing the right's crusade to bring its version of Christian values into the political arena.

We get the drift of Hart's own political orientation early on when he remarks that Sen. John Kerry, “an observant Roman Catholic,” was rejected by many voters because he “looked to be insufficiently devout.” That is a peculiar way of putting it. If looking to be devout were what Americans most wanted from politicians, Bill Clinton would have gotten 100 percent support in the 1992 election instead of the modest 43 percent he actually received. As for John Kerry, a number of polls have shown that the reason many people, not just Catholics, turned against him was not that he didn't look sufficiently devout but that he opposed all attempts to outlaw the physical act of [graphic depiction of the murder of an infant omitted by T-Fan].

But that gets us into religion, Hart might say, and religion should be kept out of politics. Religion belongs in church, and the purpose of churches is mercy; politics has to do with the state, and the state's purpose is justice. “To confuse the two is to misconstrue the bad cop (the state) and the good cop (the church).” Hart's church is one that would be hard to locate in Western history. It has an abstract quality, reflecting very little of the actual traditions of Christian people. In this country, as ­Tocqueville was not the first or last to observe, Americans have kept Christian denominations separate from the state, but not Christian morality or culture.

There is more at the link above.  I have yet to see Hart's response to this review. Doesn't the description in this review resemble items 10 and 23 of Frame's list? 

N.B. The credit line for the review was interesting: "George McKenna is professor emeritus of political science at City College of New York. His latest book is The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism (Yale)."  This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame's review.

-TurretinFan