God justly ordered that the following crimes be punished by death, and consequently it cannot be said that death is an unjust punishment for the following crimes:
Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
First Commandment – Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me
Forsaking God to Worship Anything Else
Deuteronomy 17:2-5
2If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Attempted Spiritual Seduction
By Those with Miraculous Gifts (or claims thereof)
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
By One’s Relatives
Deuteronomy 13:6-11
6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
Second Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Make unto Thee any Graven Image, or any Likeness of Anything that is in Heaven Above or in Earth Beneath or in the Water Under the Earth, thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands [of generations] of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Worshipping God in a State of Uncleanness
Approaching the Holy things unworthily
Leviticus 22:3 Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.
Defiling the Tabernacle
Numbers 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
Defiling the Sanctuary
Numbers 19:20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
Exodus 30:17-21
17And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 18Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. 19For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: 20When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: 21So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
(Several additional passages could be added regarding the particular of how the high priest and the priests must be appareled, and which families may not enter or do various things, upon pain of death, apparently by the hand of God.)
Eating the Peace Offering Unworthily
Leviticus 7:20-21
20But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. 21Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Child Sacrifice (This may also properly fall under the 1st commandment, 3rd commandment, 6th commandment, and/or 5th commandment.)
Leviticus 20:2-5
2Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Occult Practices
Actually Practicing the Dark Arts
Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Soliciting the Services of the Practitioners of the Dark Arts (though perhaps this was to be administered by God Himself)
Leviticus 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
Failing to Practice the Sacraments (possibly to be administered by God Himself)
Failure to Circumcise One’s Boy (nearly administered by God against Moses)
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Failure to Partake of the Passover without excuse
Exodus 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
Exodus 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.
Numbers 9:13 But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.
Making Offerings and Sacrifices without Presenting them to God at the appointed place (possibly to be administered by God)
Leviticus 17:3-4
3What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, 4And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:
Leviticus 17:8-9
8And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people.
Third Commandment – Thou Shalt not Take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain
Blasphemy
Leviticus 24:10-16
10And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them. 13And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Profanity of God’s name (Apparently administered by God)
Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Contempt of the Law of God / Willful and Presumptious Sin (though perhaps to be administered directly by God)
Numbers 15:30-31
30But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
Eating of a Peace Offering that is Older than Three days (apparently to be administered by God)
Leviticus 19:5-8
5And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will. 6It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire. 7And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted. 8Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Eating What is to be Sacrificed to God (apparently to be administered by God)
Leviticus 7:25 For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
Eating any kind of Blood / Vampirism (apparently to be administered by God)
Leviticus 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
(Those who take a quasi-literal view of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should be prepared to explain why Jesus commanded his disciples to violate the law, by drinking human blood.)
Trespass on Sinai
Exodus 19:12-13
12And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: 13There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
Alien Trespass on the Tabernacle Area
Numbers 1:51 And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
Numbers 3:38 But those that encamp before the tabernacle toward the east, even before the tabernacle of the congregation eastward, shall be Moses, and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the sanctuary for the charge of the children of Israel; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
(Recall that the Jews falsely accused Paul of this capital offense as applied to the Temple, namely of bringing Greeks into the temple.)
Alien Trespass on the Priestly Office
Numbers 3:10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
Numbers 18:7 Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for every thing of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest's office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Mixing the Priestly Duties and Alcohol (Apparently to be administered by God)
Leviticus 10:8-11
8And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; 11And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
Making, Using, or Imitating Holy Oil except as Required (possibly to be administered by God)
Exodus 30:22-33
22Moreover the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 23Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels, 24And of cassia five hundred shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, and of oil olive an hin: 25And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil. 26And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony, 27And the table and all his vessels, and the candlestick and his vessels, and the altar of incense, 28And the altar of burnt offering with all his vessels, and the laver and his foot. 29And thou shalt sanctify them, that they may be most holy: whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy. 30And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. 31And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations. 32Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it: it is holy, and it shall be holy unto you. 33Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people.
Making, Using, or Imitating Incense except as Required (possibly to be administered by God)
Exodus 30:34-38
34And the LORD said unto Moses, Take unto thee sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; these sweet spices with pure frankincense: of each shall there be a like weight: 35And thou shalt make it a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, tempered together, pure and holy: 36And thou shalt beat some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with thee: it shall be unto you most holy. 37And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to yourselves according to the composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the LORD. 38Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people.
Fourth Commandment – Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy, six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, for in six dayhs the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Sabbath-breaking:
The Weekly Sabbath
Exodus 31:14-15
14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Numbers 15:32-35
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
(As a grammatical matter, note that "soul ... cut off" just means that they died physically.)
The Day of the Atonement
Leviticus 23:27-32
28Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 28And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God. 29For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. 30And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. 31Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 32It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
Fifth Commandment – Honor thy Father and thy Mother that they days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee
Parent-cursing
Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Contraparental Rebellion
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Parent Battery
Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Sixth Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Kill
Killing
Leviticus 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 24:21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
Battery resulting in death
Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Numbers 35:16-18
16And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Numbers 35:20-21
20But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; 21Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
Negligent Homicide by One's Beast
Exodus 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
(note that the beast also gets the death penalty)
Seventh Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
Prostitution/Strumpetry
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Contra-Marital Sexual Relations
Adultery with a married woman
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Leviticus 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
Fornication with (and by – if consenting) an Engaged woman
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Incest, to wit Sexual Relationships “Near Kin”
Leviticus 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Including: Parent
Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Including Step-mother
Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Including Sister and Half-sister (even if born in another house, with polygamy it would be possible for a half-sister to be born in the same house)
Leviticus 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
(I really question whether the translation / transmission of verse 9 or 11 may be errant. I suspect that verse 11 is conveying that she is to be considered as though she were begotten by one’s father, meaning that sexual relations with no-blood step-sisters would also be prohibited. The LXX does not enlighten the matter, and I would give very little – if any – weight to Jewish traditions regarding the matter.)
Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Including Granddaughters
Leviticus 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Including Both Paternal and Maternal Aunts (presumably including the widow of one’s uncle)
Leviticus 18:12-14
12Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 13Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 14Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Leviticus 20:19-20
19And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 20And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
Including Daughters-in-law
Leviticus 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Including Sisters-in-law
Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Leviticus 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
(though there was a "leverite" exception if the brother had died childless)
Including One’s wife’s grandmother, mother, daughter, or granddaughter
Leviticus 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Including One’s wife’s sister while the wife lives
Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time
Sexual relationship with a woman who is “put apart for her uncleanness” (and having sexual relations when a woman has been so put apart)
Leviticus 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Leviticus 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
(A woman of marriageable age would be expected to be “put apart” about one week per month when she was not with child.)
Male Homosexuality
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Beastiality - both male and female
Exodus 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Leviticus 20:15-16
15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(note that the beast also gets the death penalty)
Eighth Commandment – Thou Shalt not Steal
Kidnapping/Selling Kidnapped Person/Holding Kidnapped Person
Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Ninth Commandment – Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness against thy Neighbor
False Testimony as to a Capital Crime
Deuteronomy 19:16-21
16If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Tenth Commandment – Thou Shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
(No Crimes punishable by death in this category.)
_____________________________________________
In contrast, the following are explicitly NOT punishable by death
Being related to a wrong-doer
Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Merely Cursing God (though possibly, “shall bear his sin,” should be viewed conjointly rather than disjointly with “shall die” in the following verse)
Leviticus 24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
Certain Crimes against Slaves
Seducing one’s engaged slave girl
Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
Battery that results in the delayed death of one’s own slave
Exodus 21:20-21
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Battery by one's animal on a slave (apparently, even if the battery results in death of the slave)
Exodus 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
(note, however, that the animal is still to be stoned)
Battery that results in the death of an unborn child (unless the mother also dies)
Exodus 21:22-25
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Purely accidental killing
Numbers 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
Numbers 35:22-23
22But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, 23Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
Battery (even if it results in death) by one's animal unexpectedly
Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
(note, however, that the animal receives the death penalty)
Battery that only results in injury, not death
Exodus 21:18-19
18And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
Being forced (or seduced in a place where resistance is futile) as a betrothed woman
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Fornication with a single (unmarried and not engaged) woman
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
(but note that there is a penalty of life marriage without the possibility of divorce)
__________________________________________
The author of the present blog invites comments on, additions to, or subtractions from this list by any reader.
-Turretinfan
Monday, August 20, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Darkness from the North
This article (link) illustrates the reversion from modernism to paganism. The article details how the (former?) princess of Norway intends to create a school to help people get in touch with their "angels." She herself claims to be clairvoyant. I think her formal royal highness (she renounced her title in 2002) put things quite correctly when she said, "I'm glad I wasn't born 200 years ago, because I would surely have been burned at the stake long ago."
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Infidels attack Other Infidels
Here's the article.
An ancient pagan, demon-worshipping religion against a modern anti-Christian religion of demons. Neither worships the one true God, though both are condemned by their knowledge that God exists and punishes sin.
While the Muslims are sending their soldiers, let us pray that God will send His harvesters to this dark region.
Praise be to the God who created the Sun, and sent His Only-Begotten Son to save,
-Turretinfan
An ancient pagan, demon-worshipping religion against a modern anti-Christian religion of demons. Neither worships the one true God, though both are condemned by their knowledge that God exists and punishes sin.
While the Muslims are sending their soldiers, let us pray that God will send His harvesters to this dark region.
Praise be to the God who created the Sun, and sent His Only-Begotten Son to save,
-Turretinfan
Friday, August 10, 2007
Persecution Update - Brother White
This week, my Christian brother Dr. James White has been under a particular load of persecution from Catholics, who have falsely accused him of various things via a number of Internet outlets such as blogs and chat forums.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why they are attacking Dr. White: he has been a faithful witness to the truth against the Mordorian tower of the Vatican. What more needs to be said? Unable to attack the truth of what he has to say, they have made the issue personal, falsely accusing a Christian many of various character defects.
Take courage, brother White! God has chosen to bless your ministry with resistance by those who oppose the gospel. Call to mind Matthew 5:11-12. This opposition may same hard to bear at this time, but God will reward you in heaven. The brethren know that the accusations of these Catholic persecutors are false, and we recognize the reason why such weaponry is being employed.
Recall how it was employed also against Luther and the other Reformers before us! Has not one of your own Team Apologian recently been documenting various of the false accusations leveled against that prominent preacher?
If they did that then, should you be surprised if the spiritual heirs of the deniers of Sola Fida use similar tactics now? Let us give thanks that God has deprived Rome of the strength to inflict physical persecution on its enemies.
Even more, though, be encouraged to cast off your consideration of the vain babbling of those whose hatred of the truth carries over to hatred of those who preach the truth. If you can, redouble your diligence to shine the light of truth on the accreted darkness of Rome, so that perhaps some may be set free. God knows how many of the elect may be under the oppressive shadow of that regime, and how many true Christians may be deluded by the false claims of that apostate body.
You are part of the light of the world, but men prefer darkness to light. Do not be afraid of their cruelty, but rejoice in the truth, with me
Praising the Creator and Provider of All Things for the Good of the Elect,
-Turretinfan
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why they are attacking Dr. White: he has been a faithful witness to the truth against the Mordorian tower of the Vatican. What more needs to be said? Unable to attack the truth of what he has to say, they have made the issue personal, falsely accusing a Christian many of various character defects.
Take courage, brother White! God has chosen to bless your ministry with resistance by those who oppose the gospel. Call to mind Matthew 5:11-12. This opposition may same hard to bear at this time, but God will reward you in heaven. The brethren know that the accusations of these Catholic persecutors are false, and we recognize the reason why such weaponry is being employed.
Recall how it was employed also against Luther and the other Reformers before us! Has not one of your own Team Apologian recently been documenting various of the false accusations leveled against that prominent preacher?
If they did that then, should you be surprised if the spiritual heirs of the deniers of Sola Fida use similar tactics now? Let us give thanks that God has deprived Rome of the strength to inflict physical persecution on its enemies.
Even more, though, be encouraged to cast off your consideration of the vain babbling of those whose hatred of the truth carries over to hatred of those who preach the truth. If you can, redouble your diligence to shine the light of truth on the accreted darkness of Rome, so that perhaps some may be set free. God knows how many of the elect may be under the oppressive shadow of that regime, and how many true Christians may be deluded by the false claims of that apostate body.
You are part of the light of the world, but men prefer darkness to light. Do not be afraid of their cruelty, but rejoice in the truth, with me
Praising the Creator and Provider of All Things for the Good of the Elect,
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Thanks Be to the Lord
For Coffee (recalling I Timothy 4:4-5 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.)
A quick comment, though - how many people who drink coffee for its caffeine drink only 8 ounces of coffee at a time?
Don't forget, however, that rest is a blessing from God:
Psalm 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
And, should you use coffee, don't try to take away your friend's blessing:
Proverbs 27:14 He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.
And don't use coffee simply for your own pleasure:
Isaiah 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!
-Turretinfan
A quick comment, though - how many people who drink coffee for its caffeine drink only 8 ounces of coffee at a time?
Don't forget, however, that rest is a blessing from God:
Psalm 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
And, should you use coffee, don't try to take away your friend's blessing:
Proverbs 27:14 He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.
And don't use coffee simply for your own pleasure:
Isaiah 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!
-Turretinfan
Monday, August 06, 2007
The Love of God - White on TV
Here's an excellent off-the-cuff presentation in response to an audience question on British television by Reformed Baptists Elder James White (link). Note how shocked the audience member is to hear that God loves even those whom he creates for destruction.
To finish up Dr. White's point, God loves different people in different ways. As we know from other parts of Scripture, "Hate" is typically used to mean "Love less." God hated Esau, but yet God loved Esau: he blessed him with a family and a name that will be remembered. The nation of Edom has been cut off, but Esau had an enormous number of descendants, and many kings were his grandchildren. So, despite the audience member's incredulity, God can love someone and provide them with good things in this life and tolerate their sin for a season, and yet (by comparison) hate them in contrasted to (as Paul puts) the great love (πολλην αγαπην) with which God loved us before the foundation of the earth and consequently sacrificed His own Son for us.
Both are love, but by contrast the former is the hatred of God. Is that truly hard to understand?
-Turretinfan
To finish up Dr. White's point, God loves different people in different ways. As we know from other parts of Scripture, "Hate" is typically used to mean "Love less." God hated Esau, but yet God loved Esau: he blessed him with a family and a name that will be remembered. The nation of Edom has been cut off, but Esau had an enormous number of descendants, and many kings were his grandchildren. So, despite the audience member's incredulity, God can love someone and provide them with good things in this life and tolerate their sin for a season, and yet (by comparison) hate them in contrasted to (as Paul puts) the great love (πολλην αγαπην) with which God loved us before the foundation of the earth and consequently sacrificed His own Son for us.
Both are love, but by contrast the former is the hatred of God. Is that truly hard to understand?
-Turretinfan
This Blog's Rating
On a lark, I ran this blog through an automated blog rating program, one linked to by TeamPyro. The result surprised me: the present blog received an NC-17 rating. The apparent source of this rating was the high number of mentions of death, dying, and hell as well as (and perhaps especially) the use of a particular Latin preposition that has a very vulgar (and apparently completely unrelated) use in English.
To confirm, I ran the same analysis on the copy of the book of Isaiah, New Vulgate translation, from the Vatican's website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_isaiae_lt.html
It received the same NC-17 rating. Depending on the sophistication of the rating engine (and I doubt it was very sophisticated at all), I've just further entrenched my rating by linking to such an "obscene" site as the book of Isaiah in the Latin tongue.
Perhaps this blog's new motto should be: "rated the same as a major prophet." In any event, it just goes to show the uselessness of automated mechanisms for making judgments with respect to obscenity.
Pax Dei vobiscum!
-Turretinfan
To confirm, I ran the same analysis on the copy of the book of Isaiah, New Vulgate translation, from the Vatican's website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_isaiae_lt.html
It received the same NC-17 rating. Depending on the sophistication of the rating engine (and I doubt it was very sophisticated at all), I've just further entrenched my rating by linking to such an "obscene" site as the book of Isaiah in the Latin tongue.
Perhaps this blog's new motto should be: "rated the same as a major prophet." In any event, it just goes to show the uselessness of automated mechanisms for making judgments with respect to obscenity.
Pax Dei vobiscum!
-Turretinfan
Persecution Update
Here's Doug Wilson's report (link) on the local persecution of the church in Moscow, Idaho. Incidentally, that is the kind of response one can expect to receive when one preaches loudly against sin in one's community. Wilson may be ignorant or confused regarding the higher level aspects of theology, but his fundamental opposition to sin and his fearless opposition to it are worthy of praise, even in the midst of chiding regarding his theological shortcomings.
Hopefully Wilson will be able to distinguish between those who persecute him for righteousness sake, and those brethren that seek to correct his errant doctrines as they relate to justification and the sacraments.
-Turretinfan
Hopefully Wilson will be able to distinguish between those who persecute him for righteousness sake, and those brethren that seek to correct his errant doctrines as they relate to justification and the sacraments.
-Turretinfan
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Murder Update
Usually I reserve murder updates for news regarding the murder of unborn people. In this case, however, the victims are Christians being murdered by Muslims.
True martyrs.
Let's hope the American government uses the opportunity presented by the South Korean government (link) to track down and eliminate these infidels. Since the mainstream American media (including the Associated Press) is trying to conceal the religious aspects of this issue, it may be valuable for the curious reader to check out a more balanced report here (link), with a cynical - though not entirely inaccurate - explanation provided on Doug Wilson's blog (link), though not by him.
Big Surprise
On a related matter, the other most public branch of militant Islam, Al-Quaeda, issued a statement that the West should expect a "big surprise" (link). It may be that the Muslims will succeed in killing, maiming, or otherwise causing suffering to even more people - if they do it will not be a big surprise. The world is aware of the activities of the followers of the false prophet.
The big surprise will be on the judgment day for jihadists who believed that their god will forgive their sin gratutiously or because of their service in his name. Only the Most High can forgive sin, and He only forgives those who trust in His Son for salvation. If any Muslims are reading this, I exhort you: do not delay, repent of following the false prophet, confess your sins to the God who created Heaven and Earth, and throw yourself on His mercy, begging Him to be compassionate toward you.
There is no God but the Triune God, and the false prophet of Islam is not His prophet.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be praised!
-Turretinfan
P.S. Praise be to the Lord for this heroic victory (link)! And these amazing victories as well (link)!
True martyrs.
Let's hope the American government uses the opportunity presented by the South Korean government (link) to track down and eliminate these infidels. Since the mainstream American media (including the Associated Press) is trying to conceal the religious aspects of this issue, it may be valuable for the curious reader to check out a more balanced report here (link), with a cynical - though not entirely inaccurate - explanation provided on Doug Wilson's blog (link), though not by him.
Big Surprise
On a related matter, the other most public branch of militant Islam, Al-Quaeda, issued a statement that the West should expect a "big surprise" (link). It may be that the Muslims will succeed in killing, maiming, or otherwise causing suffering to even more people - if they do it will not be a big surprise. The world is aware of the activities of the followers of the false prophet.
The big surprise will be on the judgment day for jihadists who believed that their god will forgive their sin gratutiously or because of their service in his name. Only the Most High can forgive sin, and He only forgives those who trust in His Son for salvation. If any Muslims are reading this, I exhort you: do not delay, repent of following the false prophet, confess your sins to the God who created Heaven and Earth, and throw yourself on His mercy, begging Him to be compassionate toward you.
There is no God but the Triune God, and the false prophet of Islam is not His prophet.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be praised!
-Turretinfan
P.S. Praise be to the Lord for this heroic victory (link)! And these amazing victories as well (link)!
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
The Efficacy of Good Works
Jim at Oldtruth.com recently posted a thought provoking article (link) entitled "Am I Doing Enough To Get God To Forgive Me?" (although he posted it, it appears it may have been written by a contributing author)
Jim's (or perhaps Chad's?) message responds to a Roman Catholic view that it is necessary to do something positive (good works/acts of penance or contrition) to counteract the negative (sin) in one's life. The view itself (whether actually the official view of Rome or not, I leave for the reader to decide) is based on a faulty premise, namely that good works and sins are somehow together on the same ledger book.
As discussed in a previous post (link) sin is any failure to follow God's law. In contrast, righteousness is following God's law. If one is to construct a ledger book regarding obedience to the law of God, therefore, sin is a violation and righteousness is no violation.
Thus, from the standpoint of the sin ledger book, any righteous deed is a zero, and any sin is a negative. In the garden, before the fall, Adam was innocent. He had not yet sinned, and consequently, his sin ledger book was zero. Once he sinned, he was negative, and nothing he himself could do could ever restore him to a zero position, because perfect righteousness is required by God.
Nothing that we do can negate the effect of sin, namely guilt. The only negation for the guilt of sin is punishment, either of the sinner himself or of an acceptable substitute. Furthermore, the penalty for any sin is death. Thus, eternal life is beyond the reach of anyone who has any sin to their account.
Objections:
Some may object that, from a moral perspective, there is a difference between sleeping and preaching the gospel. This difference, however, is not based on one being more righteous in ipse than the other. As Solomon wrote, there is a time for everything (Ecclesiates 3:1). There is an appropriate place for both ministry of the Word and sleep in the life of a Christian. Failing to sleep at an appropriate time is vain (Psalm 127:2), and sleeping too much is folly (Proverbs 6:6-11).
Some may object that it is possible to do more than what the law of God requires, and consequently earn positive merits. As to righteousness, the answer to this objection is an emphatic "certainly not." The law of God requires perfect righteousness, as I have discussed in a previous post (link) and consequently it is not possible to be more righteous than one is required to be. Accordingly, one cannot be more righteous than the law of God requires and consequently obtain merit on account of superfluous righteousness.
Others may object that although it is not possible to be more righteous than God requires, it is possible to provide a sacrifice that God will count in place of righteousness. Thus, for example, one may sacrifice one's money, desires, health, or even life. This mindset is not completely new: note how Paul makes oblique reference to it in I Corinthians 13:3.
But the bottom line is this, no amount of personal sacrifice can take away sin. The ordained sacrifices of the Old Testament could not please God so as to take away sin (Hebrews 10:6, 8, and 18). In contrast, Christ by one offering has taken away the guilt of all the sin of his people forever.
God may reward our sacrifices, but not with remission of sin. For remission of sin, only one sacrifice satisfies God, and that is the sacrifice of His Son.
Praise be to our Great High Priest and Mediator.
-Turretinfan
Jim's (or perhaps Chad's?) message responds to a Roman Catholic view that it is necessary to do something positive (good works/acts of penance or contrition) to counteract the negative (sin) in one's life. The view itself (whether actually the official view of Rome or not, I leave for the reader to decide) is based on a faulty premise, namely that good works and sins are somehow together on the same ledger book.
As discussed in a previous post (link) sin is any failure to follow God's law. In contrast, righteousness is following God's law. If one is to construct a ledger book regarding obedience to the law of God, therefore, sin is a violation and righteousness is no violation.
Thus, from the standpoint of the sin ledger book, any righteous deed is a zero, and any sin is a negative. In the garden, before the fall, Adam was innocent. He had not yet sinned, and consequently, his sin ledger book was zero. Once he sinned, he was negative, and nothing he himself could do could ever restore him to a zero position, because perfect righteousness is required by God.
Nothing that we do can negate the effect of sin, namely guilt. The only negation for the guilt of sin is punishment, either of the sinner himself or of an acceptable substitute. Furthermore, the penalty for any sin is death. Thus, eternal life is beyond the reach of anyone who has any sin to their account.
Objections:
Some may object that, from a moral perspective, there is a difference between sleeping and preaching the gospel. This difference, however, is not based on one being more righteous in ipse than the other. As Solomon wrote, there is a time for everything (Ecclesiates 3:1). There is an appropriate place for both ministry of the Word and sleep in the life of a Christian. Failing to sleep at an appropriate time is vain (Psalm 127:2), and sleeping too much is folly (Proverbs 6:6-11).
Some may object that it is possible to do more than what the law of God requires, and consequently earn positive merits. As to righteousness, the answer to this objection is an emphatic "certainly not." The law of God requires perfect righteousness, as I have discussed in a previous post (link) and consequently it is not possible to be more righteous than one is required to be. Accordingly, one cannot be more righteous than the law of God requires and consequently obtain merit on account of superfluous righteousness.
Others may object that although it is not possible to be more righteous than God requires, it is possible to provide a sacrifice that God will count in place of righteousness. Thus, for example, one may sacrifice one's money, desires, health, or even life. This mindset is not completely new: note how Paul makes oblique reference to it in I Corinthians 13:3.
But the bottom line is this, no amount of personal sacrifice can take away sin. The ordained sacrifices of the Old Testament could not please God so as to take away sin (Hebrews 10:6, 8, and 18). In contrast, Christ by one offering has taken away the guilt of all the sin of his people forever.
God may reward our sacrifices, but not with remission of sin. For remission of sin, only one sacrifice satisfies God, and that is the sacrifice of His Son.
Praise be to our Great High Priest and Mediator.
-Turretinfan
Monday, July 30, 2007
Young Earth Creationism - Not Young
Perhaps the neophyte will find it ironic that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the elder of the two branches of Creationism, the younger of the two being Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Once one has even a cursory knowledge of the issue, however, any surprise immediately dissipates.
A plain reading of the Old Testament and the Gospels makes it clear that the world was created supernaturally by God in the space of a week, and more particularly, in six days each consisting of an evening and morning. This event took place less than 10,000 years ago, which we can calculate more or less accurately from geneologies provided, for example, in Genesis 5 and the gospels.
Frankly speaking, there is no reason for anyone who excludes outside information from the Bible to arrive at any other conclusion. The Bible, on its face, is clear. God created the world, he did so in six days, and rested on the seventh day. In celebration of this fact, we observe the week.
Nevertheless, from time to time, weak Christians are tempted to believe the testimony of scientists (and their acolytes) who claim that they have unshakable evidence (some may even claim "proof") that the earth is older than 10,000 years. These Christians, led astray by the lies, deceit, or simply errors of the "science crowd" believe the testimony of the crowd.
Some do so by disbelieving the testimony of Scripture outright: these are the so-called Theistic Evolutionists. They deny that God created man from the dust of the Earth and woman from the rib of man. Others, however, seek to harmonize the Bible somehow to the old earth claims of the science crowd. These are termed Old Earth Creationists. They create novel and sometimes bizarre interpretations of Scripture to try to justify a timeline that holds the universe to be tens of billions of years old, and biological life to be billions of years old.
The detailed rebuttal of the underlying fanciful expositions of Scripture are a subject I hope to take up at another time. For the moment I want to seize upon one of the more sinister and devious approaches that have been made by those who oppose the plain truth of Scripture.
Specifically, some portion of the anti-YEC movement has been spreading lies regarding the age of YEC, claiming that YEC is a 20th century phenomenon. Seizing upon a grain of truth, namely that one of the foremost advocates for young earth creationism in the 20th century was a Seventh Day Adventist, dishonests oponents of young earth creationism have attempted to claim that it was never the view of Christians before the 20th century that the world had been created only recently.
Amazingly, some professing Christians in the 21st century have actually come to believe these lies. Let us put the lies to rest once and for all.
A few clear examples should suffice:
1. Theophilus of Antioch (3rd Century A.D.) dated the Creation at BC 5509.
2. Julius Africanus (ca. 225 A.D.) dated the Creation at BC 5500.
3. Ephraem Syrus (died 378 A.D.) - adopted LXX Creation date of 5508 and accused the Jews of subtracting 600 years to avoid the conclusion that the Christ had come.
4. James Ussher (died 1656 A.D.) - dated the Creation at BC 4004.
5. William Hales (ca. 1809) - dated the Creation at BC 5411
6. Henry Fynes Clinton (ca. 1824) - dated the Creation at BC 4138
The first (that I have been able to identify) that attempts to make the world older than the Bible indicates is
Martin Anstey, in his 1913 book "The Romance of Bible Chronology." He calculates man's creation at BC 4042. Mr. Anstey, however, asserts that a gap is to be found between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. This gap is potentially of a great length of time, and the reason for it's appearance is obvious: Darwin's "Origin of Species" (First Edition 1859) had become wildly popular (launching from the platform built by Lamarck who died 1829), and in order to cowtow to the science crowd, it was necessary to avoid the first four chapters of Genesis. Accordingly, Anstey begins his chronology with Adam at Genesis 5, and essentially writes off the historical value of the account of the first week. The theory was not entirely new to Anstey, having been invented earlier by Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), with essentially the same obvious motivation, though to Lamarckian, rather than strictly Darwinian, Evolutionism.
Today, the idea that man was created less than 10,000 years ago is out of vogue with the science crowd, and consequently the gap theory of OEC is no longer widely popular. Even the other school of OEC, the day-age (alone) crowd, is no longer very popular, mostly because the science crowd will not agree that all of humanity descended from a single pair of human ancestors who lived less than 10,000 years ago.
Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd.
Another group has simply given up: their motto is, "There is scientific truth and religious truth, and the two are in different worlds." This is nonsense and confusion. There is only one truth. The Bible reveals that truth to us clearly and testimonially. If foolish scientists derive a conclusion at variance with the revealed truth of Scripture, it is that scientist who is in error.
But perhaps all that can wait for another day.
For now it suffices to say that OEC is essentially new. There are some scattered passages from the fathers that are sometimes pressed into service to attempt to show an older age for the earth, but this distortion is vain.
Perhaps we ought, like the monks who copied Scripture in the middle ages, to date our writings absolutely in testimony to the doctrine of Creation, rather than in testimony to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
If so, then we should consider this to have been written July of 7015 (if we adopt the LXX's chronology).
May the Glory of our Creator-God be praised in this 8th (or however many) millenia of His reign over the Earth!
-Turretinfan
A plain reading of the Old Testament and the Gospels makes it clear that the world was created supernaturally by God in the space of a week, and more particularly, in six days each consisting of an evening and morning. This event took place less than 10,000 years ago, which we can calculate more or less accurately from geneologies provided, for example, in Genesis 5 and the gospels.
Frankly speaking, there is no reason for anyone who excludes outside information from the Bible to arrive at any other conclusion. The Bible, on its face, is clear. God created the world, he did so in six days, and rested on the seventh day. In celebration of this fact, we observe the week.
Nevertheless, from time to time, weak Christians are tempted to believe the testimony of scientists (and their acolytes) who claim that they have unshakable evidence (some may even claim "proof") that the earth is older than 10,000 years. These Christians, led astray by the lies, deceit, or simply errors of the "science crowd" believe the testimony of the crowd.
Some do so by disbelieving the testimony of Scripture outright: these are the so-called Theistic Evolutionists. They deny that God created man from the dust of the Earth and woman from the rib of man. Others, however, seek to harmonize the Bible somehow to the old earth claims of the science crowd. These are termed Old Earth Creationists. They create novel and sometimes bizarre interpretations of Scripture to try to justify a timeline that holds the universe to be tens of billions of years old, and biological life to be billions of years old.
The detailed rebuttal of the underlying fanciful expositions of Scripture are a subject I hope to take up at another time. For the moment I want to seize upon one of the more sinister and devious approaches that have been made by those who oppose the plain truth of Scripture.
Specifically, some portion of the anti-YEC movement has been spreading lies regarding the age of YEC, claiming that YEC is a 20th century phenomenon. Seizing upon a grain of truth, namely that one of the foremost advocates for young earth creationism in the 20th century was a Seventh Day Adventist, dishonests oponents of young earth creationism have attempted to claim that it was never the view of Christians before the 20th century that the world had been created only recently.
Amazingly, some professing Christians in the 21st century have actually come to believe these lies. Let us put the lies to rest once and for all.
A few clear examples should suffice:
1. Theophilus of Antioch (3rd Century A.D.) dated the Creation at BC 5509.
2. Julius Africanus (ca. 225 A.D.) dated the Creation at BC 5500.
3. Ephraem Syrus (died 378 A.D.) - adopted LXX Creation date of 5508 and accused the Jews of subtracting 600 years to avoid the conclusion that the Christ had come.
4. James Ussher (died 1656 A.D.) - dated the Creation at BC 4004.
5. William Hales (ca. 1809) - dated the Creation at BC 5411
6. Henry Fynes Clinton (ca. 1824) - dated the Creation at BC 4138
The first (that I have been able to identify) that attempts to make the world older than the Bible indicates is
Martin Anstey, in his 1913 book "The Romance of Bible Chronology." He calculates man's creation at BC 4042. Mr. Anstey, however, asserts that a gap is to be found between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. This gap is potentially of a great length of time, and the reason for it's appearance is obvious: Darwin's "Origin of Species" (First Edition 1859) had become wildly popular (launching from the platform built by Lamarck who died 1829), and in order to cowtow to the science crowd, it was necessary to avoid the first four chapters of Genesis. Accordingly, Anstey begins his chronology with Adam at Genesis 5, and essentially writes off the historical value of the account of the first week. The theory was not entirely new to Anstey, having been invented earlier by Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), with essentially the same obvious motivation, though to Lamarckian, rather than strictly Darwinian, Evolutionism.
Today, the idea that man was created less than 10,000 years ago is out of vogue with the science crowd, and consequently the gap theory of OEC is no longer widely popular. Even the other school of OEC, the day-age (alone) crowd, is no longer very popular, mostly because the science crowd will not agree that all of humanity descended from a single pair of human ancestors who lived less than 10,000 years ago.
Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd.
Another group has simply given up: their motto is, "There is scientific truth and religious truth, and the two are in different worlds." This is nonsense and confusion. There is only one truth. The Bible reveals that truth to us clearly and testimonially. If foolish scientists derive a conclusion at variance with the revealed truth of Scripture, it is that scientist who is in error.
But perhaps all that can wait for another day.
For now it suffices to say that OEC is essentially new. There are some scattered passages from the fathers that are sometimes pressed into service to attempt to show an older age for the earth, but this distortion is vain.
Perhaps we ought, like the monks who copied Scripture in the middle ages, to date our writings absolutely in testimony to the doctrine of Creation, rather than in testimony to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
If so, then we should consider this to have been written July of 7015 (if we adopt the LXX's chronology).
May the Glory of our Creator-God be praised in this 8th (or however many) millenia of His reign over the Earth!
-Turretinfan
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Worthy of Note - Turretin on Discipline
"[E]xcommunication is the rod of a pious mother over a bad son, whom she does not therefore regard as not a son because she whips him, but chastises him severely that he may reform and not cease to be a son altogether."
- Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Fifteenth Topic, Question XVI, Section XL (page 613 of Volume 2, in Giger's translation as recently published)
Original Latin: Excommunicatio est flagellum piae Matris in pravum filium, quem non quia flagellat, ideo habet pro non filia, sed castigat graviter, ut emendet, ne fiat omnino non filius.
We, in this modern age of moral decay, should not be surprised to see that both church and family discipline have been corrupted similarly, such that in churches where severe discipline for the restoration of children is not (or rarely) practiced, severe discipline for the restoration of congregants is not (or rarely) practiced.
The parallel remains, though the Refomers would condemn our generations for failing to heed the Word of God as it pertains to discipline, both ecclesiastical and parental.
-Turretinfan
- Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Fifteenth Topic, Question XVI, Section XL (page 613 of Volume 2, in Giger's translation as recently published)
Original Latin: Excommunicatio est flagellum piae Matris in pravum filium, quem non quia flagellat, ideo habet pro non filia, sed castigat graviter, ut emendet, ne fiat omnino non filius.
We, in this modern age of moral decay, should not be surprised to see that both church and family discipline have been corrupted similarly, such that in churches where severe discipline for the restoration of children is not (or rarely) practiced, severe discipline for the restoration of congregants is not (or rarely) practiced.
The parallel remains, though the Refomers would condemn our generations for failing to heed the Word of God as it pertains to discipline, both ecclesiastical and parental.
-Turretinfan
Is it even worth mentioning? Sippo Update
Sippo in three recent posts:
(a) connects Lutheranism and National Socialism (Do you really want a link?);
(b) thinks his question "Was the Good Samaritan saved?" has an answer other than, "The Good Samaritan was not a real person." (link for those who doubt that Sippo would actually call that answer "a dishonest excuse."); and
(c) denies that the first and great commandment (upon which hangs all the law and prophets) is meant literally (link in which Sippo attaches the adverb "crassly" to the adjective "literal": particularly ironic when you consider his view of the Eucharist), in order to avoid admitting the obvious, namely that we all always fall short of perfect obedience to the great commandment.
-Turretinfan
(a) connects Lutheranism and National Socialism (Do you really want a link?);
(b) thinks his question "Was the Good Samaritan saved?" has an answer other than, "The Good Samaritan was not a real person." (link for those who doubt that Sippo would actually call that answer "a dishonest excuse."); and
(c) denies that the first and great commandment (upon which hangs all the law and prophets) is meant literally (link in which Sippo attaches the adverb "crassly" to the adjective "literal": particularly ironic when you consider his view of the Eucharist), in order to avoid admitting the obvious, namely that we all always fall short of perfect obedience to the great commandment.
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Simple Gospel - Four Suggestions
The Simple Gospel
Advice for Parents and Evangelists
In recent dialogue with an internet friend of mine, who goes by the handle Doveflight, I was reminded of the need to express the gospel in clear, understandable (but correct) terms to those who listen.
DoveFlight wrote:
I am finding myself stumbling all over how to explain to my children salvation faith without saying the words "make a decision." I have presented the gospel many times before my 'reformation' but now can't seem to find the right words in correlation with God's election.
My first two suggestions to parents and evangelists are these:
1. Keep it Simple: the discussion of the issue of election is not a simply issue that should necessarily come up in every presentation of the gospel. While it may come up in some gospel presentation, and especially if someone has mistaken ideas about the strength of their sin to separate them from God, nevertheless, in most cases, the glorious truth of individual election is more properly classified as meat than milk, and is something that believers should be grateful for, not something that convicted sinners should be fretting about.
2. Keep it Real: don't try to suggest that it is a choice, because it is not a free choice: God is applying the most powerful possible coercive, eternal punishment. You'd have to be incredibly stupid or insane to refuse God's "offer" once you realize the reality of your predicament. It's not so much an offer as a command: "Worship Me!" says God, "Or Die!"
DoveFlight continued:
Anyway, the best I can come up with is repent of your sins, believe Christ alone is the answer and confess Him as your Lord and Savior.
DoveFlight's solution is very Biblical, after all that's the very message Christ preached: "Repent and Believe!"
That's my third suggestion to parents and evangelists (including missionary-evangelists):
3. Keep it Biblical: preach Repentence and Faith
If you're looking for other ways to express it:
- Acknowledge the guilt of your sins to God and trust in the Son for mercy.
- Turn from your evil and worship the living God.
- Confess your wrong-doings, and cast yourself upon Him.
Another Internet poster, TheoJunkie, whose site is linked over on the left, chimed in:
Terms like "turn from evil" and "repent" have gone the way of "evangelical" and "born again" in meaning (that is, they may or may not mean what you meant for them to mean (more likely not), depending on the ears they fall on).
TJ makes a great point, and this leads me to my fourth suggestion:
4. Keep it Clear: try to avoid using terms that are laden with connotation that will confuse, and stick with unambiguous words, especially if they contradict the person's preconceptions. If the person has been fed a steady diet of pluralism, make it clear that God's name is Jealous: He demands to be worshipped alone, and that he declares that all the other gods are dumb idols, the works of mens imagiantions and hands, or else demons. If the person has been fed a diet of works-righteousness, point out the requirement of perfect obedience, and the consequent impossibility of doing works of supererogation.
After all, the key is to convey what you mean - that can mean not speaking in Latin to Americans nor in baggage-laden terminology to post-modern pluralalists. With that in mind, you might be able to make the alternative expressions above even plainer by adding more words:
Admit to God (and yourself) that you have broken God's law, and deserve eternal punishment for (each of) those violations; beg God for mercy[, and learn to loathe breaking the law of God, because you know it offends Him (not because you can ever make the violations right yourself)].
I put the last part in brackets, not because it should be omitted, but to point out that sanctification is not a part of justification.
I would love to hear what other suggestions readers may have for relatively simple, real, Biblical, and clear expressions of the Gospel message.
May our Holy and Just God be praised in the Glory of His Excellency!
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Sin: any failure to perfectly follow God's law
What is Sin?
Sin is any failure to perfectly follow God's law.
Sin, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.
The Westminster Larger Catechism slightly expands and clarifies, by stating that sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.
The Westminster Confession of Faith treats the matter implicitly: "Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal."
The first twenty questions of the Heidelberg Catechism (link) do a great job of discussing sin, its effect, and its cure. In fact, any Roman Catholic who concerns Reformed Theology to be in error should be prepared to respond to those twenty questions and answers.
Why belabor this point? Because there are certain folks running around these days claiming that sin is only voluntary violation of the law of God: i.e. that only conscious, volitional infractions are sins, namely that one can only sin by choosing to sin.
Before we prove that point, it is important to point out the voluntary, intentional sins are still sins and they are particularly heinous sins. We will return to this in a moment.
The moral law of God, as summarily comprehended (i.e. summarized) in the ten commandments, does not include a "volitional" component, especially as some of its commands are positive. More especially, the most famous summary of the moral law:
Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Quoted here:
Matthew 22:35-40
35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Both of these are phrased positively, namely by stating what we must do, not what we are forbidden to do. Failure to do what are supposed to do can be attributed to many factors, but it should be readily apparent that one can fall short of loving God or of loving one's neighbor without voluntary act: in fact, failure to act may itself be a violation of the law of God, where loving God or one's neighbor requires action.
A second argument against a requirement that sin be positively voluntary are the references to sins of ignorance in Scripture:
Numbers 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
Deuteronomy 19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
The first verse identified above makes it clear that sins done in ignorance are still sins, are still in need of atonement, and consequently are something that can be forgiven. The second verse shows the breadth of ignorant sin, in that it encompasses the unintentional. The third verse provides confirmation that sins of ignorance are still justly to be punished, and that mercy is the way of escape from punishment for such sins.
Some may object that sins are described as willing or willful (Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, ). It should be understood, however, that willing sin is more heinous than done in ignorance, thus premeditated killing (punished by execution) is more serious than accidental killing (punished by exile to a city of refuge). Thus, some sins are more heinous than others, with willful sins being more heinous than ignorant sins.
Perfection
One non-Calvinist poster named "FreeGrace" has challenged not that God prohibits sin, but has suggested that God does not require perfect obedience. On the contrary, yes, God requires perfect obedience.
Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Deuteronomy 18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-Turretinfan
Christian Miracle-Working Has Ceased
Christian, But Not Necessarily All Miracle-Working, Has Ceased
Introduction
In a variety of contexts, the question of alleged miraculous gifts comes up. Some amazing things have been reported to me, in terms of alleged psychics and their ability to reveal secrets and predict the future; of the healing power of idols (Christian and pagan); and so forth. I recently met a self-proclaimed "Master of Raki" (Raki is apparently a Tibetan ritualistic practice that claims to be able to heal using an impersonal lifeforce), and was recently reminded (on the TeamPyro website) of similar (although less amazing) claims by the fraud Benny Hinn.
There is a wide variety of claims to the ability to work miracles, ranging from snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains - to Benny Hinn's claims to cure invisible sicknesses - to Raki claims to cure visible injuries - to many claims to the ability to speak prophetically (tell the future) - to the ability to speak in languages that are not one's own by upbringing or study - to the ability to raise the dead. The alleged miracle working is not always positive, some claim to be able to injure and kill at a distance, and not a few people are mortally afraid of jinxes and evil eyes that are thought to be able to be cast by ill-wishing miracle-workers.
Miracle-working in Christianity
In Christianity, the purpose of miracle-working was primarily to testify to the inspiration of the miracle-worker. That is to say, the purpose of Paul being able to miraculously cure people was in order that those around him would have immediate, unmistakable confirmation that he was a messenger (apostle) of God, and that God was with him. The prophets, beginning at Moses, in general (and perhaps without exception) had the ability to do miracles and these miracles were confirmation that the Spirit of God had been given to them. In any event, the prophets had the gift of prophecy, which is self-confirming to the generations that follow. Thus, we no longer can witness the miracle-working of Isaiah or Jeremiah, but we can still read their prophecies and the fulfillment thereof.
But miracle-working in Christianity was not only a testimony, it was usually useful and practical. Jesus' first recorded miracle was the transformation of water into wine, not to wow those of Cana, but to provide for the lack of wine at the feast.
Moses' first miracles were an exception: they were purely demonstrative, but almost immediately the miracles were both demonstrative and purposeful. The plagues upon Egypt were miraculous and punitive. The dividing of the Red Sea provided a path, the collapse killed the pursuers.
We may be able to find other purely demonstrative miracles: the fire from heaven that consumed the offerings to the Lord, but not to Baal would be another such example.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the miracle-working gifts were practical. Perhaps the most practical were the gifts of prophecy (to reveal the word of God) and the gift of tongues (to reveal the word of God to the nations).
Those special gifts were given during the time prior to the completion of the Bible. Now the testimony in the Bible of the miracles performed is all the witness we have. We must trust God and believe His word.
Miracle-working Outside of Christianity
There are also numerous reports of miracle-working outside of Christianity. The Raki master I alluded to above reported that he saw a Tibetan woman heal a serious skin injury immediately and visibly before his eyes. Many have reported that psychics told them secrets that ordinary human intuition could not have revealed. Roman Catholic exorcists have reported that demoniacs have spoken to them in Latin, though the one possessed never studied that language.
Not all of the alleged miracle-workings outside of Christianity are real. There are many frauds, many hoaxes, and many devious tricksters. Harry Houdini notable exposed most of the alleged psychics of his own day as mere charlatans. As far as I know, none of the famous magicians of the present day claim to use supernatural ability: all purport to be (and it is reasonable to believe that they are) merely illusionists and prestidigitators.
Almost certainly the vast majority of modern Tarot readers, Palmists, Numerologists, and Astrologers fall into the hoax category: many even delude themselves in this regard. One has only to go into a large bookstore in any major city in the Western world to find a large section on the occult - not just novels that capture the public's fascination with the occult, but also practical "how to" guides for determining the future and so forth.
On the other hand, it may be that there are some real miracle-workers outside of Christianity. After all, we are told that the Egyptians had magicians who were able to perform small wonders, and we are told about more than one demoniac with revelatory power in the New Testament.
Furthermore, we know that the fallen angels have much strength: recall what Satan was able to accomplish (by God's permission) against Job, including bringing sickness and death of his family members.
Alleged Christian Miracle-working in the Post-Apostolic Era
There are numerous allegations of miracle-working, particular among Pentecostals/Charismatics but also among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The former group asserts that miracle-working gifts are widespread, and the latter group views miracles as isolated events, typically performed by the exceptionally righteous.
The former group's testimony is marred by numerous frauds and hoaxes. Prominent in the former group is the deceiver Benny Hinn. Others have adequately documented the fraud that he practices. He claims to heal people, but the vast majority of his claims are to heal illnesses that cannot be seen by the audience. When serious investigation is made of his claims, the result is that no or only an amount attributable to a placebo effect are the result.
The latter group's testimony is fraught with superstition, old wive's tales, exaggerations, and even lies. Claims that the relics of the saints have wrought numerous miracles are alleged, but confirmation of these miracles is impossible. Where investigation of the supposed wonder-working effects of the relics has been investigated, it has usually been positively established that the effects are mythical or fraudulent. Francis Turretin himself records the investigation that was made of two celebrated relics that had been held at Geneva: the brain of St. Peter and the arm of St. Anthony. Upon inspection, the former was discovered not only to be powerless, but to be a pumice stone: the latter, the leg of a stag.
These days both churches zealously conceal their relics, and it is unlikely that all will be exposed to the same investigation. Anyone reading the account of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches would be amazed at the vast multitude of miracle-workers that have filled their ranks. It seems that every generation until the last hundred years had some miracle-worker or other, and yet now that we can travel to the far reaches of the globe to check, the "saints" have ceased to work miracles.
Possibly some Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person, however, can correct me - pointing out some place where miracle-workers are still at work. I understand, for example, that it is generally alleged that the monks on Mt. Athos are supposed to be particularly holy, and even that some there have prophetic gifts, though I have not seen a shred of copy of their supposed prophecies.
Application of the Principles Above
Not every miracle-worker is what they say they are. Some are frauds and hustlers. There have, however, been genuine miracle-workers. As should be deduced from the principles above, those who today claim to be miracles-workers may generally be categorized as follows:
- Frauds (e.g. Benny Hinn)
- Self-Deceived (e.g. Many followers of the frauds, and perhaps even some of the frauds themselves.)
- Miscategorized (e.g. Illusionists are not miracle-workers, nor do they claim to be.)
- Myths (e.g. The legendary acts of the "saints" of the Eastern and Roman churches.)
- Demoniacs (e.g. Legion)
- Witches/Wizards/Warlocks (e.g. the Endorian Witch)
Conclusion
The gifts of working miracles disappeared when Scripture was complete, because there was no longer any need of miracle-working for its primary purpose (although the secondary purpose continues to be of great need).
God also continues to maintain the world by His miraculous Providence, which may include many marvellous and unexplainable answers to prayer. Furthermore, God acts in this world miraculously transforming God-haters to God-lovers.
Miracles themselves have not ceased, but the time of the prophets and apostles is past, and their gifts are not with us today. The only physical miracles wrought by men today are either fraud, mistake, or evil. Beware, dear Christian.
Recall that it was because of occult practices that many of the nations of Canaan were punished by God, at the sword of Joshua, with genocide.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12
9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
For some readers this passage may strike home more than one way. In both the Eastern and Roman churches righteous men and women who devoted their lives to service of the Lord are doubly dishonored both by superstitious ascription of wonder-working to them, and by necromantic attempts to communicate with them whose ears have long decomposed, whose souls are in glory with the Lord.
Communication with the dead is tied to the occult: both are pagan, and both particularly anger God. Don't do it - don't try to practice magic, don't claim to have gifts you don't, don't imagine that God has made you a wonder-worker, don't accuse righteous man of participating in such schemes, and don't attempt to communicate with the dead. If you happen to be around someone who can do legitimate supernatural things, beware: such an one is not of God.
Referring back to the Raki master I mentioned above, this man attempted to suggest that the impersonal force was the Holy Ghost is the impersonal force he channels to perform his healings, and that Jesus was a very high level Raki master of some sort. Such blaspheme is shocking to this author, but as Christian culture declines, we must be prepared to hear such claims. When we do, do not be impressed by their magic, do not join in their rituals, and do not make the mistake that many fathers of the Roman and Eastern churches did of trying to Christianize them. Instead eschew evil, and cling to Christ. Pray with me that the light of God's truth will shine both about the darkness of the occult and the darkness of the hoaxes unauthorizedly perpetrated in His Holy name.
May God have Mercy Abundantly,
He is a Compassionate God, let us praise Him!
-Turretinfan
Monday, July 02, 2007
Centuri0n Grabs Some Low-Hanging Fruit
In a post earlier today, Centuri0n responds to an argument that believers-only baptism is reflective of an anti-sovereigntist mindset (Source).
Yeah, Centuri0n, we all know that there are Reformed baptists, and that Reformed baptists don't baptize believers-only for that reason. On the other hand, the "your mama" part of the critique is dead wrong. You wrote: "So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works." You should know better, Centuri0n: bad works do have actual demerit, for which men receive all the blame. Works are not symmetrical.
Perhaps, next you'll go after other low-hanging fruit in the covenantal tree, like Doug Wilson's reason inane statement that: "Although Christians have their differences over infant baptism, we need to remember that in a certain sense all baptisms are infant baptisms" (Source).
No, Doug, they are not all infant baptisms unless one just equivocates over the meaning of infant. Equivocation, however, is not "a certain sense," but two conflated senses. Furthermore, it is precisely such equivocation over the term "infant" that leads to the undermining of the doctrine of justification by faith and provides fodder for Reformed Baptist critiques.
Fortunately, for Presbyterians and Congregationalists (and Reformed Anglicans, if there are any left), there are far more able advocates on this particular subject. I would exhort Centuri0n to respond to them instead.
-Turrretinfan
Yeah, Centuri0n, we all know that there are Reformed baptists, and that Reformed baptists don't baptize believers-only for that reason. On the other hand, the "your mama" part of the critique is dead wrong. You wrote: "So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works." You should know better, Centuri0n: bad works do have actual demerit, for which men receive all the blame. Works are not symmetrical.
Perhaps, next you'll go after other low-hanging fruit in the covenantal tree, like Doug Wilson's reason inane statement that: "Although Christians have their differences over infant baptism, we need to remember that in a certain sense all baptisms are infant baptisms" (Source).
No, Doug, they are not all infant baptisms unless one just equivocates over the meaning of infant. Equivocation, however, is not "a certain sense," but two conflated senses. Furthermore, it is precisely such equivocation over the term "infant" that leads to the undermining of the doctrine of justification by faith and provides fodder for Reformed Baptist critiques.
Fortunately, for Presbyterians and Congregationalists (and Reformed Anglicans, if there are any left), there are far more able advocates on this particular subject. I would exhort Centuri0n to respond to them instead.
-Turrretinfan
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Petrine Primacy or Etymological Error?
Why did people start to think Peter was the head of the church?
The question that is the subject of this post is one that should be of interest to those who have heard the many claims of papal primacy. Scripture nowhere indicates or suggests that Peter was the head of the church. How then, could people have begun to think so?
Papal Invention Hypothesis
There is always the possibility that the motivation was simply self-serving. The alleged successor of St. Peter created a story that Peter was the head of the apostles, and used political connections in Rome to force the story on the rest of the church within the Roman empire. That may be the most likely and reasonable explanation.
But there is a way that the legend could come to be, and this way is much more interesting.
False Cognate Hypothesis
The Aramaic name for Peter is transliterated Cephas in our English Bibles, and that name is usually pronounced with a soft "c". Nevertheless, a more accurate transliteration calls for a hard "c" or K. Thus, a better transliteration is Kephas.
In Greek, the word for head is κεφαλη which would be transliterated to Kephaleh. It is easy to imagine that someone with no knowledge of Armaic might mistakenly think that Kephas was etymologically related to Kephaleh. Thus, a group of Christians for whom Latin was their first, Greek their second, and Aramaic an unknown language, might easily misunderstand the appellation of Peter as "Kephas" to mean that he had been made the head of the apostles.
This kind of false cognate mistake is not without precedent. It is on the basis of a similar false cognate (this time within a single language) that Moses is sometimes depicted in ancient images with horns. This was the result of mistaking Kaeren (horn) and Karan (to shine).
Likewise the legend that the forbidden fruit was an apple arose (apparently) from a confusion between the Latin word malus (apple) and malum (evil).
Hybrid Hypothesis
Another option, of course, is that an enterprising pope or papal advocate took advantage of the false cognate to bolster an argument in favor of Petrine primacy.
Conclusion - Further Study
So far this is just a hypothesis that struck me as I was reading through Scrivener. What would be interesting would be to see if there is any record of the false cognate argument actually being used. Although I think it is unlikely that any such argument would have survived to present, if it was ever committed to paper.
Objections
I recognize that there are various arguments for Petrine Primacy, but those are really quite aside. If Peter is assumed to be the head of the church, there are various passages that can be pressed into service to try to support that hypothesis. There is, however, no reason within Scripture to suppose that Peter was the head of the church.
I also recognize that there are various extrascriptural sources that assert Petrine Primacy. The problem is this: most (and probably all) of those are folks who wrote significantly after the fact, and at a time when the bishop of Rome had begun to play imperial politics.
The question that is the subject of this post is one that should be of interest to those who have heard the many claims of papal primacy. Scripture nowhere indicates or suggests that Peter was the head of the church. How then, could people have begun to think so?
Papal Invention Hypothesis
There is always the possibility that the motivation was simply self-serving. The alleged successor of St. Peter created a story that Peter was the head of the apostles, and used political connections in Rome to force the story on the rest of the church within the Roman empire. That may be the most likely and reasonable explanation.
But there is a way that the legend could come to be, and this way is much more interesting.
False Cognate Hypothesis
The Aramaic name for Peter is transliterated Cephas in our English Bibles, and that name is usually pronounced with a soft "c". Nevertheless, a more accurate transliteration calls for a hard "c" or K. Thus, a better transliteration is Kephas.
In Greek, the word for head is κεφαλη which would be transliterated to Kephaleh. It is easy to imagine that someone with no knowledge of Armaic might mistakenly think that Kephas was etymologically related to Kephaleh. Thus, a group of Christians for whom Latin was their first, Greek their second, and Aramaic an unknown language, might easily misunderstand the appellation of Peter as "Kephas" to mean that he had been made the head of the apostles.
This kind of false cognate mistake is not without precedent. It is on the basis of a similar false cognate (this time within a single language) that Moses is sometimes depicted in ancient images with horns. This was the result of mistaking Kaeren (horn) and Karan (to shine).
Likewise the legend that the forbidden fruit was an apple arose (apparently) from a confusion between the Latin word malus (apple) and malum (evil).
Hybrid Hypothesis
Another option, of course, is that an enterprising pope or papal advocate took advantage of the false cognate to bolster an argument in favor of Petrine primacy.
Conclusion - Further Study
So far this is just a hypothesis that struck me as I was reading through Scrivener. What would be interesting would be to see if there is any record of the false cognate argument actually being used. Although I think it is unlikely that any such argument would have survived to present, if it was ever committed to paper.
Objections
I recognize that there are various arguments for Petrine Primacy, but those are really quite aside. If Peter is assumed to be the head of the church, there are various passages that can be pressed into service to try to support that hypothesis. There is, however, no reason within Scripture to suppose that Peter was the head of the church.
I also recognize that there are various extrascriptural sources that assert Petrine Primacy. The problem is this: most (and probably all) of those are folks who wrote significantly after the fact, and at a time when the bishop of Rome had begun to play imperial politics.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Exegesis Challenge - Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism
This challenge goes out to any and all non-Calvinists.
1. Pick five passages that you believe support your view on soteriology, and I will do the same.
2. Write a thorough, detailed exegesis of those five passages (no limit on how long it can be ... make it as long as you need), and I will do the same.
3. Then I will critique and/or provide an alternative exegesis for each of the exegeses you provided, and you will have the responsibility to do the same for mine.
4. Write a rebuttal to each of the critique/alternative exegeses I present, and I will do the same for your critiques/alternative exegeses.
5. Provide comments back and forth in the footnotes of the rebuttals (both yours and mine) until all the arguments have been made.
If you are interested, you can either post a comment here, or you can send me an email. A link to my email address is available through my Blogger profile, which (at present) you can get by clicking on the "About me" information on the left side of this blog.
My preference would be initially to do the papers by email, and then we are both satisfied, to post the final collection as a whole to this blog or another internet site.
Negotation/variation of the proposal is certainly welcome.
Any takers?
-Turretinfan
1. Pick five passages that you believe support your view on soteriology, and I will do the same.
2. Write a thorough, detailed exegesis of those five passages (no limit on how long it can be ... make it as long as you need), and I will do the same.
3. Then I will critique and/or provide an alternative exegesis for each of the exegeses you provided, and you will have the responsibility to do the same for mine.
4. Write a rebuttal to each of the critique/alternative exegeses I present, and I will do the same for your critiques/alternative exegeses.
5. Provide comments back and forth in the footnotes of the rebuttals (both yours and mine) until all the arguments have been made.
If you are interested, you can either post a comment here, or you can send me an email. A link to my email address is available through my Blogger profile, which (at present) you can get by clicking on the "About me" information on the left side of this blog.
My preference would be initially to do the papers by email, and then we are both satisfied, to post the final collection as a whole to this blog or another internet site.
Negotation/variation of the proposal is certainly welcome.
Any takers?
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Why I am not an Evidentialist
Why I am not an Evidentialist
Introduction
There are many available epistemologies. One that is popular in many circles is the epistemology of evidentialism. This epistemology is the favored approach by many, and can be summarized as the view that one believes what one believes because that is what the weight of the evidence indicates is true. I am not an evidentialist, and I believe that evidentialism is a fundamentally flawed epistemology.
The Attraction of Evidentialism
Despite the fundamental weaknesses of Evidentialism, Evidentialism has blossomed in popularity. The primary reason for the attraction is that evidentialism typically presents itself as Science.
Those who dare to challenge Science are viewed today as fools or Luddites: locked in the middle ages and flat earth geography. Scientists are regarded as the most intelligent portion of society, busily improving life on earth through the application of the Scientific Method.
If Science says, "X," that is enough for many people to believe it. Thus, for example, you will hear arguments in public fora that it is absurd to call Homosexuality a deviant practice rooted in mental and spiritual illness, because the science of Psychiatry has not listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in its most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
One will hear that a young child in his mother's womb is not a person, because the science of biololgy has labelled the child a "fetus." One will likewise hear that the Great Flood could not have happened as described, because Science says otherwise.
Appeals to Science are becoming an entrenched part of the fabric of public discourse. The use of DNA evidence in court has led people to place even more confidence in the ability of Science to provide truth.
On the coattails of this popularity, evidentialism in its most popular form, Naturalism, arrives. Naturalism claims to be the result of scientific investigation, and holds nothing to be known unless it has been verified scientifically. Their opponents are not arguing with them, they will say, but with the evidence.
Some Christians, perhaps even without thinking, have adopted to one degree or another the same epistemology and suggest that they hold what they hold, because the weight of the evidence supports it. Thus, for example, one will hear of apparently Christian apologists claiming to be able to prove that the balance of evidence proves that there is a God, or that the world is intelligently designed, or that rules of morality are good.
Evidentialism and the Scientific Method
As noted above, evidentialism has gained ground because it purports to be scientific. The usual way that something has been viewed as scientific is by whether it applies the scientific method. The scientific method is normally thought to proceed:
- Guess/Hypothesis/Formulation/Theory
- Testing/Data/Empirical Analysis
- Theorization/Verification/Validation/Canonization or Rejection/Rewriting/Reformulation/Revision/Invalidation
The Scientific Method, thus, begins with uncertainty, and proceeds toward (at least this is the goal) greater certainty. The more testing a hypothesis has undergone, the stronger its verification, until it is eventually validated or even canonized as a scientific principle or law. The Scientific Method is also usually cyclical. A guess can turn into a hypothesis, and then a theory.
Evidentialism tries to imitate this principle. It begins with a hypothesis, and then attempts to validate the hypothesis by testing. Thus, evidentialism seeks to wear the mantle of the scientific method, even when some of its hypthothesis are not scientifically testable in the usual sense of the word.
The Scentific Method, despite its foundation on guesses and hunches, gives its holders an aura of objectivity. The reason why this is so, is that the Scientific Method has been used with great success in the applied sciences: engineering and medicine. People assume that technological success is the result of discovery of truth, and consequently they believe the Scientific Method to be a revealer of objective truth.
Presuppositions in Evidentialism
One reason that Evidentilists pick Evidentialism is a belief that by choosing that epistemology, they are beginning with a blank slate. This is false. There are presuppositions in Evidentialism. One standard presupposition of Science, for example, is Naturalism.
Specifically, science normally presupposes that every cause is the result of a purely natural effect. Usually, scientists do not consider this a very problematic presupposition. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that it is a presupposition.
There are other presuppositions as well: that the world is orderly, that there is a connection between perception and reality, that experience is transitive, and a host of other presuppositions. These presuppositions are not items that can be either established or rebutted by evidentialism, whether in the form of science or in any other form.
A response from a typical beaker-filler or spectrum-analyzer is often to blow off this issue, as though it were not an epistemic weakness: "So you're saying that experience might not be transistive?" Such replies are simply belligerant, they do not defend the choice of presuppoisitons - nor (more importantly) recognize that the entire Scientific, Naturalistic, and Evidentialist epistemology is piggy-backed on a presuppositional epistemology.
Result of Adherence to Strict Evidentialism - No Beginning
The result of adherence to strict Evidentialism, denying whatever cannot be proved by appeal to sensory experience and other evidence, is to deny the fundamental presuppositions of Evidentialism. Evidentialism cannot prove (or even test) that experience is transisitive, that the world is orderly, or that the natural is all that there is.
In short, Evidentialism is self-contradictory. Because Evidentialism, strictly taken, is self-contradictory, it is an improper and invalid epistemology from the very beginning. Evidentialism cannot stand on its own to ensure that it has started from the right place, and consequently the Evidentialist can never have any knowledge that has the confidence of a foundation.
Result of Adherence to Strict Evidentialism - No Certainty
The results of Evidentialism are always tenuous; its adherence have no certainty that what is a law today will be a law tomorrow. Newton's laws are a prime example of this phenomena. Until Einstein, Newton's laws enjoyed widespread general acceptance in the scientific community. Now, Newton's laws are viewed as a helpful approximation under certain conditions. There is no reason to fill this account with more examples, though certainly more could be given.
The historical fact is that Science's body of knowledge has always been in flux, and that not even the greatest scientist is unable to be corrected. Aristotle's Physics was a widely accepted work for many centuries, but later Science rejected it, and you will find it rare than any college class (in Physics) will spend more than an hour on the entire body of Aristotle's work.
With such a track record, an Evidentialist might have a hunch that he could could verify by testing that the body of Scientific knowledge at the beginning of each decade for the last hundred years has been different from the body of Scientific knowledge at the end of each such decade. Upon that ground, an Evidentialist may conclude that there are numerous unknown items that are Science today, but will be labelled "error" in the scientific community tomorrow.
Result of Adherence to Strict Evidentialism - No End
Not only can Evidentialism not assure its adherence that it has started from the right place or that it is in the right place now, it cannot assure its adherents that it is converging to the right answer. Because Evidentialism cannot see the end in sight, Evidentialism cannot assure its followers that they are converging to the truth. Evidentialism may currently be converging toward something, but there is no way for the Evidentialist to be sure that this something is the truth.
What Guess has not been Made?
This is the nagging question in evidentialism. Until Einstein, no one had presented his own hunch about the way the universe is supposed to operate. Einsteinian descriptions of the world are very useful, but are they correct? Is there a better guess about the universe that has not been investigated? This is the nagging question that distracts from the beauty of any "truth" of Evidentialism.
Evidentialism tries to silence this nagging question as unfounded speculation. Evidentialism teaches its advocates that the prevailing wisdom should simply be accepted. At the same time, and conflictingly, Evendentialism rewards skeptics who can come up with guesses that test better than the guesses in the prevailing position.
Fundamentally Dishonest
The claims of Evidentialism are fundamentally dishonest: the beginning of Evidentialism must be borrowed from a presuppositional (or similar) framework; it promises truth but delivers constantly changing guesswork; and it promises improvement without any reason for supposing that can provide improvement.
Open to Skepticism
In addition to narrow skepticism regarding particular scientific theories, Evidentialism is open to attack by general skepticism. If there are two ways of interpreting evidence, it is impossible for Evidentialism to decide between them.
Evidentialism tries to resolve this problem by resort to Occham's razor. Occham's razor states that the simpler explanation should be accepted over the more complex explanation. There is, however, no Evdiential reason to adopt Occham's razor. Instead, the mechanism is yet another stop-gap presupposition.
Evidentialism also tries to resolve the problem (sometimes in combination with the razor above) that the more probable of the explanations should be accepted. There is a real problem, however, with this approach. It is often (if not always) difficult to assign a priori probabilities. Accordingly, the resort to probabilitic arguments frequently ends up with mere emotive arguments or, worse, arguments that make up the probabilities from thin air.
Responses to Skepticism are Self-Destructive
Whatever approach Evidentialism takes in responding to Skepticism is self-destructive. An appeal to a presupposition that favors simple explanations betrays the non-evidential underlying epistemology; an appeal to probability betrays both uncertainty and weakness at arriving at the alleged probability.
In short, Evidentialism cannot stand on its own two feet against the Skeptics.
Objections
One objector might object that I myself use evidentialist techniques! I'm not afraid to apply the Scientific method to everyday life, when my car breaks down, my faucet drips, or my dog gets ill. That's certainly an objection with a touch of truth. I do use the scientific method in such circumstances.
I do so, however, recognizing that it is piggy-backed on my dogmatic presuppositionalism. I know why I can trust my senses and the scientific method: because God has revealed Himself to be an orderly God and the world to be a place run by law.
Another objector may complain, "If you can't trust your senses, you can't trust the Bible!" This frequent objection is misplaced. I can trust my senses - I know that I can because the Bible tells me so. God has revealed the truth of His Word to me, and consequently I know that I can trust it. From that, I can deduce that I can also trust my senses, to a degree.
Another objector will argued that if I can use evidentialist techniques, I am not in a position to forbid Evidentialists from doing so. My response is that Evidentialists do not have an epistemic basis for their use of the techniques; they cannot know anything certaintly, and consequently cannot know whether they know anything at all.
Yet another objector might assert that that the Bible uses an evidentialist epistemology. Such an objector would point to the reliance of certain authors in Scripture to tangible evidence. Nevertheless, as the Apostle Peter explained, all the writers of Scripture spoke according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They spoke the words of God. And the most frequent appeal by all the prophets and apostles is that they are speaking the Word of the LORD, the Gospel. Their appeal is to the authority of God, and their epistemology is dogmatic and revelation-based.
One last objector may state that he considers himself an Evidentialist, but that he grounds his reason for believing "evidence" in "transcendentals." This is not true Evidentialism, but a slightly modified form of Evidentialism that I will deal with, God Willing, under the separate head of Van-Tillianism / Transcendentalism.
-Turretinfan
Monday, June 25, 2007
Germany Identifies Scientology as a Cult
The good news is that Germany recognized Scientology as a cult/scam (link). The bad news is that Germany does not officially recognize (to my knowledge, anyhow) that Islam is an even worse cult/scam. Scientology may ruin someone financially, but Islam has killed and continues to kill. Maybe we'll see some progress in time.
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
