Response to Dave's "Debate/Informal Discussion" Offer

I) Whereas at sundry times, mostly recently,

1) Dave Wrote: "Tyhe debate ain't about justification, but about why anti-Catholics think Catholicism ain't Christian." (all errors/irregularities in original)

[But of course the issue of justification is central to Christianity proper.]

2) And again: "I will resist all attempts to pigeonhole this into yet another Reformed preaching crusade, whether it be focused on TULIP or sola fide or anything else. This is about why y'all claim that Catholicism as a system theology does not deserve to be classified as Christian." (all errors/irregularities in original)

[But of course sola fide is a core Christian doctrine of justification.]

3) And again: "I couldn't care less about all the formal nonsense of how to set up a debate. It's just an informal discussion (I think, between Christians who have an honest disgareement; you think, between a Christian and an infidel / apostate). My opponent gets to grill me for 90 minutes. I grill him for 60."(all errors/irregularities in original)

[Although I had been led by the previous title to suppose that I had been challenged to a debate, not to an informal discussion.]

4) And likewise: "Technically speaking, the debate won't be directly about doctrine, but about the definition of "Christian" and why "Catholicism" supposedly is excluded from that category. Doctrine will surely be discussed as a part of that large discussion, but no particular doctrine would be the main thing in focus, or to be debated. But, of course, whoever I debate will try to talk about doctrines, because that is what Protestants almost always do. They get inside the self-contained circle of their own thought and fire away, never dreaming that there might be something outside the circle that is also Christian." (all errors/irregularities in original)

[But of course it is doctrine, namely the Gospel, that defines Christianity.]

II) And whereas, as best understood, the following will, in essence, be Dave's argument:

1) To wit, first:

The contradiction, however, lies in the assertion that great men of the past "agreed with Rome on almost everything" yet were still somehow Christians. Today, the standard anti-Catholic line is that in order to be a good Christian, a man has to be a bad Catholic; i.e., dissent on any number of doctrines that Protestants don't like. If I am a good Christian, then I can't possibly believe all that Rome teaches, or I am no Christian at all. And those who are regarded by these same folks as likely or possibly Christians who are Catholic are invariably the ones who dissent and don't fully accept Catholic doctrine, because it is thought that the Council of Trent anathematized the gospel and defined Catholicism (as a theological system) out of Christianity.

(all errors/irregularities in original)

2) And, to wit, second:

Or, of course, people like Martin Luther (due to his beliefs in the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration), John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and entire denominations such as Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Churches of Christ, various Pentecostal groups, and the Salvation Army can be read out of the Christian faith due to their "unorthodoxy," as defined by the self-proclaimed "mainstream" evangelicals such as Baptists, Presbyterians and Reformed (even so the last two groups baptize infants, although they vehemently deny that this causes regeneration, whereas Baptists don't). Since most Protestants are unwilling to anathematize other Protestants, perspicuity dissolves into a boiling cauldron of incomprehensible contradictions, and as such, must be discarded or at the very least seriously reformulated in order to harmonize with the Bible and logic.

(all errors/irregularities in original)

III) And whereas I have carefully reviewed Dave's web site the best that I can, and I have not seen any definition of Christianity in anything close to explicit terms,

IV) And whereas Dave asserts contrary to many Roman Catholics that Scripture does not have equal (link) or lesser (link) but instead (like a Protestant) asserts that Scripture has greater authority;

V) And whereas Dave asserts (like a Protestant) contrary to many Roman Catholics that salvation is sola gratia (link);

VI) And whereas Dave asserts (like a Protestant would about the God whom Protestants worship) contrary to many Roman Catholics that Muslims do not worship the same god as Roman Catholics (link) (or CCC 841);

THEREFORE,

1) If it's not to be a debate, I guess I have not been challenged to a debate;

2) If the point is to be able to label me as an "anti-Catholic" the debate is pretextual;

3) Any debate on the Christianity (proper) of Catholicism must involve a discussion of the specific doctrinal reasons for excluding Catholicism from Christianity;

4) The Gospel is summarized by: Repent and Believe and Trust in Christ, or Perish for Your Sins!

5) Dave has never, to this author's knowledge defined Christianity to the exclusion of other religions;

6) Dave's apparent line of argument would attempt to refocus the debate away from the central issue to a claim of hypocrisy;

7) Dave's defense would not be a defense of Roman Catholic dogma but a Protestantized version thereof (especially considering Dave's apparently anti-Tridentine acceptance of Reformed Christians as Christians rather than as anathema),

AND CONSEQUENTLY

I ask the reader to judge, what would be the point of the debate at this time?

Trent already anathematized (literally, not figuratively) sola-fideans, and sola fide is the Gospel. Can Dave argue with that now?

Does Dave now have a definition of Christianity that would include those anathematized by Rome?

Why doesn't Dave now agree with many Roman Catholic on issues that would be core to any debate?

My conclusion is that Dave is not now prepared to do a debate, and consequently I will await information suggesting that Dave has either stopped calling himself a Roman Catholic (in which case I will decline the debate, because I have no desire to debate whether Roman Catholicism is Christian with someone who is not fully Roman Catholic), or until Dave has accepted that:

• Trent denied Sola Gratia by Denying Sola Fide;
• Trent, Vatican I, and/or Vatican II exalted the authority of the church to at least the level of Scripture; and
• Vatican II asserted that Roman Catholicism worships the same god as Islam,

and until Dave has provided

• some counter-definition for what is Christianity proper, that includes (apparently) those who are under Rome's Anathema and the wrath of "God," "Peter," and "Paul."

Before anyone launches the usual "You just don't know what Catholicism is" and/or "Catholicism is inscrutable to outsiders like yourself," (go here, if that's your opinion) I ask that such a person ask themselves what they think makes them a better interpreter of Roman Catholic documents than me? Does being an American make you a better interpreter of the U.S. Constitution than a Frenchman (or vice versa)?

Why is your opinion about what Roman Catholic documents mean more authoritative than what other Roman Catholics think, or even than what educated outsiders think?

Why should we reject Rome as apostate if she is not? Do we anathematize all who disagree with us on any point? Why would I pass up gaining one billion brethren? Do we not accept a vast number of denominations as Christian, even when they disagree with us on many points? You, dear reader, know the answer.

The answer is that we give primacy to Scripture and consequently reject as innovations many of the doctrines and traditions of Rome that are not taught by Scripture. But that still does not force us to assert apostacy, only corruption, arrogance, and deception.

What is more significant, though, is that we reject the gospel of Rome, because it is not the Gospel of Christ: the answer to "What must I do to be saved," is not simply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" in official Roman Catholic soteriology.

That is not to say that there are no priests or bishops of Rome who follow Scripture on this matter rather than Roman Catholic dogma, and praise be to God if such is the case. On the very issues identified in my post, while many Roman Catholics follow the official church dogma, many do not. As Dave's comments above seem to indicate, there may well be "bad Catholics" who are Christians.

Far from being "anti-Catholic" we continue to call on Rome to reform her ways, remove the corruption, and embrace the gospel of Christ. We call those Christians who are in the Roman Catholic church to consider whether Reformation is still possible, and - if not - to leave for an evangelical church, where the gospel is preached.

To God alone be the Glory for my salvation, by grace alone not cooperation therewith,

-Turretinfan

P.S. Thanks to the many folks who provided advice and encouragement. Obviously, for now, the debate is on hold, pending Dave's decision about whether to follow Roman Catholic dogma or not label himself Roman Catholic. I sincerely hope that Dave chooses the latter approach, because there is only one way to heaven: by grace through faith in the gracious God revealed in Scripture. That is the truth whether anyone accepts or not.

UPDATE (6 December 2007): Dave continues to lie about the matter (and insult the present author) here (link) and here (link). Dave wishes I would refuse to debate him, but wishing doesn't make it so. (FURTHER UPDATE: Dave has subsequently edited his posts (linked to earlier in this paragraph, with an apology for their being overly harsh. While I appreciate that apology, I continue to stand by my original point that I have not refused to debate Dave, and I wish he'd stop trying to claim that I did. There are some things that need to be ironed out before a debate takes place, and Dave has actually made progress, by posting an attempted defense of Vatican II's comment regarding Islam. That has actually reduced the barriers to meaningful discussion.)

Caps Doffs to a Few Deserving Posts

Some great recent posts on Free Will

Steven J. Camp: Quoatations regarding Free Will

Peter Pike at Triablogue: Arminibot.

-Turretinfan

Dave's Debate Challenge

I wonder whether Dave would be willing to stipulate for the purposes of the debate that Catholicism includes:

- the dogmatic denial that the impious man is justified by faith alone (Based on Trent);

- the dogmatic denial that Scripture is of greater authority than any council or pope (Based on Trent and Vatican I); and

- the dogmatic affirmation that the god of the Muslims is the one true God (Based on Vatican II).

-Turretinfan

Question to Lucian

Apologies to folks with a feed reader who got my misplaced post intended for the debate blog.

That said, Lucian, you seem to think that Basil the Great holds similar views to you.

Yet, you also seem to think that "oral tradition" was not secret.

Basil, however, suggests that the oral traditions were unwritten to preserve their secrecy.

Would you care to explain yourself?

-Turretinfan

Saved by Whose Faith?

One reader wrote in:

I have a quick question that I am hoping you could help me on. It is about faith and the Arminian view of it. The Arminian side says that we must have faith before we are saved and that is what election is based on, I hope at least that that is what they say. I have been reading [a writer] and he states that we live by the faith of Jesus, not by our faith [in] Him. Meaning it is not our faith that saves us, but rather his faith/faithfulness that saves us. Would you agree to that? It seems like most of the Bible translations have those Scripture verses read our faith. Some that were in the book Gal. 2:20, Rom. 3:22, Philippians 3:8,9.

He also wrote that the last part of Romans 8:1 should not be included as it is in the KJV. I have looked at the Geneva Bible that you recommended and it has the last part of the verse in there as well. “… that walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” He argues that the writer’s eyes moved to verse 4.

If it is not our faith that saves us, but rather our Lord’s faith/faithfulness that saves us then I wonder how the Arminian side can stand? Would the argument be that it should not read His faith, but it should read our faith?

Thanks for the time and for shedding more light on this for me.

I respond:

It is the righteousness of Christ, his faithful obedience to God's law, that saves us.

His work is imputed to us by faith. In other words, we trust in the work of Christ.

Thus, faith has an instrumental role.

One important problem with the Arminian position is that it fails to recognize what faith is: faith is trusting in the work of Christ.

Arminian theology tends to change faith into a work, something we do in order to be saved: as though we are saved on account of our faith (the thing itself) rather than on account of Christ's righteousness (the object of faith).

Because Arminian theology views faith as the meritorious cause of our salvation, Arminian theology also often asserts that the elect are chosen on account of foreseen faith.

There is a serious flaw with the Arminian argument though: faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit: it is something that the Spirit produces in us. Scripture says so.

How does the Spirit do so? By opening the spiritually blind eyes, and the spiritually deaf ears. Do you honestly think any person in their right mind prefers eternal punishment to eternal blessedness? Do you honestly think that any person does the calculus and decides that the pleasure of rebellion against God is worth eternal damnation?

Surely not.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

People do not seek the physician because they do not believe they are ill. Some people may not have looked to the brazen serpent, because they doubted the efficacy of that course of treatment for snake bite. Few people believe that Christ can save them, and few trust in Him to do so.

But note that we do not "trust in trust" or have "faith in faith" instead we trust in Christ, we have faith in the Son of God.

What saves us? It is not our faith, though it is by faith that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. It is Christ's righteousness that saves us.

Regeneration is the reason we see our sinful condition, our need of a Saviour, and the Identity of that Saviour, the Saviour of the World (for there is no other saviour in the world, nor is there one saviour for Whites and another for Blacks, but one saviour for all nations). With our eyes wide open, what choice do we have?

In one way of looking at it, we have no choice at all. It is a no brainer. We either Worship God or Die. It is the most extreme form of threatening coersion possible, for there is nothing more fearful than Him who can place both body and soul in hell for all eternity.

Those who do not repent of their sins and trust in Christ are blind and deaf to the warnings of the Gospel. "Repent and Believe or Perish," it says.

"I'll take my chances," answers the fool.

So then, it is God that saves us from beginning to end. It is the Spirit that works faith in us, as Scripture says, by opening our minds to the light of the truth so that we may be converted and God would save us.

Is faith a means to the end of our salvation? Certainly.

Is faith obedience to the command of God? Surely.

Yet is faith the meritorious cause of our salvation? God forbid! For salvation is by grace through faith. It is not of ourselves, but a gift of God, lest anyone should boast.

God does not choose to save those who first choose him. God chooses to save some, and consequently arranges so that they choose him. Just as the disciples were chosen by God (not the other way around), so are all the disciples even to the present day. He chooses us, not we him (though we do choose him, and though the disciples did choose him).

I do not think the Arminian position can stand. We do not distinguish ourselves (assisted or unassisted) from those who are lost by a superior exercise of our will - we are distinguished from those who are loss by the grace alone (sola gratia) of God, who has mercy on whom He will.

Praise be His Glorious and Holy Name!

-Turretinfan

P.S. As for the textual issue, it's not a particularly significant variant, as far as I can tell, because the meaning is about the same whether "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" is present once or twice. Without more detailed investigation I'd be inclined to accept it as genuine despite some early manuscripts that omit it, because I think scribes are more likely to omit material than add material. On the other hand, without more investigation (and I have not investigated this variant in much detail) the argument in favor of omission being proper is slightly strengthened by the proximity of the repeat phrase. Still, the phrase really seems to fit the flow of the passage in both cases, and so I don't see a big reason to think it was not original. I'd want to dig deeper before being dogmatic. Is it important? I don't think so: it doesn't significantly change the meaning of the passage whether it is included or omitted (which may be why some scribes omitted it).

Biblical Miracles

Dear TheoJunkie,

I'd really love to hear your thoughts (either in the combox here or on your own blog) regarding these recent posts:

Biblical Miracles I
Biblical Miracles II
(UPDATED 25 October 2007)
Biblical Miracles III

-Turretinfan

Debate Challenge by Dave Armstrong

Dave Armstrong, a well-known Roman Catholic apologist has challenged the present author to debate the topic of "Is Catholicism Christian?" and/or "What is Christianity?" (link to challenge)
I wonder what my readers (Catholic or non-Catholic) think about whether I should accept.
Frankly, I'm not sure that the discussion would really qualify as a debate, because questions are not resolutions. But that's just a formal matter, that perhaps Dave could accomodate by providing a resolution such as: "Resolved: Catholicism today is at least part of the Christian religion."
Assuming that some mutually acceptable resolution could be found (either for me or Dave to affirm), what do my readers think of the idea?
In a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom.

Dave, thanks for the invitation, I'm mulling it over.

-Turretinfan

UPDATE (25 October 2007):

Dave has suggested:

"Resolved: the Catholic Church (led by the pope) is Not Properly Classifiable as Christian."

or

"Resolved: Only (Some Species of) Protestantism Can Be Properly Regarded as 'Christian'".

(with, one would think, the latter resolution being interpreted to mean that the only thing that can properly be regarded as Christian is some particular species of Protestantism, to the exclusion both of other species of Protestantism and all non-Protestantism)

Obviously, those would be resolutions for the present author to affirm, and Dave would take the negative position.

Thanks to Dave for these suggestions, which should make the issue much more concrete.

Neither of the resolutions appears to require my asserting that all Roman Catholics are necessarily unsaved, or that Roman Catholicism is not classifiable as Christian in some sense (after all, the RCC claims to be a (and perhaps "the") Christian church). Instead, the resolutions appear to relate to the proper (i.e. technical) definition of "Christian."

Obviously, as well, one would assume that the question is phrased from the standpoint of things the way they are now, not 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 1000 year ago, or even 1950 years ago.

-Turretinfan

Second UPDATE (same day):

Dave has provided some further clarification (his words, not mine, and not adopted by my quoting them):

"If one can't be saved by adhering to what the Catholic Church teaches (about Jesus, faith, the way of salvation, the sacraments, etc.), then obviously it isn't Christian."

Which is worse - Homosexuality or the Occult?

I'm sure you can guess which has been more seductive to Christianity.

That's my two cents on the topic of the week.

-Turretinfan

Request for Clarification from TheoJunkie

TheoJunkie wrote:

"any utterance TODAY that attempts to institute a new rule of faith or practice is false prophecy on its face. For that would violate Sola Scriptura."

TheoJunkie was asking me to confirm my agreement (or was confirming his agreement with me - I don't want to be stickler about the purpose of the comment), but I'm afraid I still don't understand his position well enough to know whether I agree.

One aspect of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture alone is an infallible rule in matters of doctrine and the only conscience-binding authority in matters of practice. In other words, any doctrine that is not rooted in Scripture is not properly dogma, and any rule of behavior that is not rooted in Scripture is a matter of preference.

But this doctrine is not in a vacuum. There is a reason for this doctrine. The reason for this doctrine is the perfection of Scriptures. Scriptures have always been the supreme authority even in the age of the prophets, but the word of God from the mouth of a true prophet was as infallible as the same word from the pen of the same prophet. Furthermore, Peter (for example) received new rules of behavior in a vision from God and properly conveyed them to the church before Luke completed the Acts of the Apostles in which they were recorded. Same goes for the counsel of Jerusalem.

Sola Scriptura is a practical reality more than a positive doctrine. Scripture is supreme because Scripture is known (by faith) to be the Word of God. Thus, both Paul's writings and preaching were subject to confirmation by the Word of God.

Indeed, precisely because of the primacy of Scripture, we can reject Mohamed as a false prophet because of his denial of the death and resurrection of Christ, without regard to a view on cessationism and even without regard to the fact that Mohamed lived after the time that Scripture was completed.

Similarly, we can reject the Gnostic's writings (even those purporting to be early) not simply because of the historical evidence that they were written much later, but also because they are inconsistent with the known (by faith) Scriptures.

Ever since Moses was given the law (part orally and part in writing) and placed the unwritten portion in writing, that writing has been the measure of all prophecy. The Scriptures grew as more revelation was provided. The Scriptures are now complete.

But if God speaks today, what (except for an a priori commitment to Sola Scriptura) would constrain him to reveal nothing new in terms of doctrine or practice? Presumably nothing.

But then why commit to Sola Scriptura a priori? What is the justification for Sola Scriptura if there are still prophets of God?

-Turretinfan

Tradition - What does it Mean?

If you have the chance to address those who seek to defend "tradition" from Scripture, you will find them appealing to Scriptures and fathers who say that the apostles passed some things on orally, rather than in writing.

Let's be clear on one thing: even if the "tradition" advocates were right that the was material communicated that was important and was not in Scripture, that still does not bring us to the "tradition" position.

Why not?

Because the "tradition" position is not just that some (or all) bishops get the whispered secrets of the apostles passed down orally over the centuries Kaballah-style. Instead, it is that "the church" (meaning the RCC if you ask a Catholic, the EO if you ask an Orthodox, etc. etc.) has the ability to avoid doctrinal error (or perhaps any error - depending who you ask).

In other words, "tradition" in the sense that it is usually used has little to do with "oral tradition" passed down from the apostles.

Instead, "tradition" is simply the aggregated teachings of whatever church one adheres to. It is this sense of "tradition" that Jesus criticized with respect to the Pharisees - and it is this kind of "tradition" that is particularly dangerous. While we should respect previous Christian men, we should still test their doctrine by Scripture, lest we fall (with the Orthodox, Catholics, and Pharisees) into the trap of making the Word of God of none effect by our traditions.

Will we have traditions? Of course. Sola Scriptura is not amnesia. We simply subject our traditions to Scripture.

Praise be to God, who has given us the fullness of His revelation in these latter days,

-Turretinfan

Traditionalist Caveat

If you are opposed to Sola Scriptura, supposing that tradition is necessary to provide authoritative tradition, you need to make sure you have the right authoritative tradition.

While you have no doubt heard the usual anti-Sola-Scriptura argument that there are ba-zillion (it's a technical term) Protestant denominations, possibly you are unaware that there are good deal more than one "tradition" group.

The largest "tradition" group (by headcount of supposed members) is the Roman Catholic Church (typically claiming to be about 1 billion strong). There are, however, some within the Roman Catholic Church who claim that it has been hijacked (see the discussion here) - and it would not be the first time such a claim has been made: at one time there were three different men claiming to be the "real pope" and of course denouncing the other two as anti-popes.

On top of that there is Eastern Orthodoxy (which claims to have about 300 million members).

And then there are the Coptics, Nestorians, Armenian Catholics (not to be confused with Roman Catholics), most of which generally hold to different traditions than the EO and RCC folks, but sometimes getting subsumed in the head count of one group or the other. Also, there seem to be at least some Anglicans who hold to "tradition."

So - which "tradition" is the correct one?

One usually hears the claim that a "referee" is necessary to decide competing interpretations of Scripture. If that's so, isn't it also necessary there be a "referee" to decide competing claims of "tradition"?

Of course, a consistent Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Sedavacantist Roman Catholic will deny that a referee is needed: and we cannot fault them there. Instead, we fault them for claiming that our epistemology is flawed on the basis of a lack of referee, when it turns out the same criticism applies to their own position.

-Turretinfan

History of Gifts?

I've been enjoying various discussions with TheoJunkie (link), who appears to have taken the position that the extraordinary gifts (the so-called Charismata) have not ceased. I still consider him a Christian brother, and I value his thoughts.

That said, I disagree his apparent views on the charismata.

My impression of the history of things is that the charismatic movement is of relatively recent origin, and that it is rather well known among Reformed Christians that Christians (including Christians who preceded the Reformation) have not had the extraordinary gifts since the time of the apostles.

Sure, I recognize that there are legends among the Catholics and Orthodox of miracles of the Saints. I'm not talking about those - for a variety of reasons, most principally because they are poorly documented (in my opinion - and I recognize that if you are Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox you probably will disagree with me about how well documented they are).

Let me be more specific, though:

I'm not aware of any Reformed Christian between say 1650 and 1850 (200 years) that claimed to be a prophet, a tongues-speaker, or a miraculous healer.

Can anyone, particularly brother TheoJunkie, identify historical documentation to the contrary?
I suppose that I've got my history right (but I'm open to correction). If I'm wrong:

Were such men excommunicated or welcomed by the Reformed churches?

If I'm right:

What's the explanation for the lack of extraordinary gifts in that two-hundred year period in which the Spirit of God was active in bringing many to salvation?

If I'm wrong, but the men were all excommunicated, I'll have a follow-up question.

-Turretinfan

Open Apolegetic Challenge to T.J. Pennock

Dear T.J. Pennock,

I had the pleasure of reading through many, though I confess not all, of the posts on your blog (Liver and Onions) - an enormous percentage of which relate to Calvinism, apparently from a less-than-favorable George Bryson-esque perspective.

I notice that in your most recent post you go after Calvinist apologists. As a Calvinist apologist, I didn't find the portrait particularly compelling - but then I'm clearly biased. I'd like the chance to demonstrate which of those characterizations are true, which are meaningless, and which are incorrect.

So, if you have interest, perhaps we could explore one issue that you believe particularly highlights the weakness/heresy/what-have-you of Calvinism.

If it is hard for you to pick something, perhaps we could focus on your June 30, 2007, post in which you suggest that the great Reformer Jerome Zanchius was a child of the devil because of his comments on election and reprobation.

You would take the affirmative position that Zanchius' following statement contains heresy:

As the future faith and good works of the Elect were not the cause of their being chosen, so neither were the future sins of the reprobate the cause of their being passed by, but both the choice of the former and the decretive omission of the latter were owing, merely and entirely, to the sovereign will and determinating pleasure of God.

But perhaps you have a better suggestion.

I have a debate blog set up where we could conduct this debate in a formalized manner. At the moment I'm wrapping up a debate on Sola Scriptura with an Eastern Orthodox opponent, but I'd be happy to find time to accommodate an edifying debate with you on a Calvinism topic of your choosing.

Please don't leave me hanging.

-Turretinfan

Who is Harmed When We Sin?

In a combox of a Catholic blog, from a user purporting to be a high profile Catholic (who I will abbreviate FB), I heard this:

"profaning the Lord is just a wrong against God, but God, who is perfect, cannot be diminished by this harm"

It reminded me of almost the same remark by Shabir Ally, a Muslim apologist:

"It doesn't hurt God in any way if you or I sin. It does not take anything away from his greatness. It does not reduce his power in any way if we sin. When we sin we hurt ourselves. And this is why we are taught to pray: 'Our Lord, we have wronged our souls, and if You do not forgive us, have mercy on us, then surely we are the losers.'"

Shabir's comments are actually an interesting paraphrase:

Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

But both Shabir and FB see only part of the equation. There is another side though:

Malachi 3:8-9
8Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. 9Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Yes, when we sin we harm ourselves, but consequently not directly. We harm ourselves, because our sins cause us to be guilty.

But when we sin, we also wrong God. No one can take away from God's power and greatness, as Shabir correctly noted, and we cannot diminish the perfection of God (in fact, God is glorified when we sin), but sin is still an offense against God.

God cannot tolerate sin, for holiness is an essential attribute of God:

Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

That is why we pray not with the words of Proverbs 8:36, but with the words of the prophet Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 14:20-22
20 We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee. 21Do not abhor us, for thy name's sake, do not disgrace the throne of thy glory: remember, break not thy covenant with us. 22Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not thou he, O LORD our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made all these things.

Micah 7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

Jeremiah 3:12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Isaiah 64:9 Be not wroth very sore, O LORD, neither remember iniquity for ever: behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people.

Isaiah 57:16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.

For indeed:

Psalm 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

Psalm 138:8 The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

Exodus 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Psalm 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.

But there is a difference between the elect and the reprobate:

Psalm 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

And again:
Hebrews 10:30-31
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

And God's Justice must be satisfied:

Jeremiah 3:5 Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.


So then, let us pray, to the one true God, to this God:

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

To the Just God and Saviour,

-Turretinfan

A Fly in the Charismatic Ointment (Pun Cheerfully Intended)

John Chrysostom, Homily IV on Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold [the AntiChrist]. And otherwise he ought to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased: for they have long since ceased."

This comment is a bit of a fly in the ointment of those who claim that the spiritual gifts have not ceased, but is also a bit of a fly in the ointment for those who think that Christians were unable to tell that prophecy had ceased, and that the only revelation they could work from was that had been committed to writing and providentially preserved by God. That is not to say that there may not be some Christians who had difficulty discerning imitations in the first few generations after the apostles.

It's also a bit of a fly in the ointment for those who assert that their church has continually had prophets since the days of the apostles, as some "Orthodox" have apparently asserted, pointing to the mystical experiences of ascetic monks on Mt. Athos and in other places.

I'm sure that modern "charismatics" have developed an explanation for the absence of positive historical evidence of the continuation of the gifts, possibly along the lines that those of the "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" (who also claim to have living prophets in their midst).

-Turretinfan

Declension of Thou

Apparently some people find reading Elizabethan English challenging. For their benefit, the following irregular declension.

Nominative

Thou / Ye

E.G. Thou shalt not kill.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Vocative

Thou / Ye

E.G. O ye of little faith.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Accusative/Dative/Objective

Thee / You

E.G. He shall rule over thee.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Genitive

Thine / Your

E.G. Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Possessive

Thy (Thine) / Yours

E.G. Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac ...

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Was that so hard?

-Turretinfan

After Evolutionism Therefore Because of ...

Well, not really because of Evolutionism per se, but the following linked article is exactly the result one would expect from a pure naturalist (link) attempting to deny the Providence of God (i.e. that God's Creation acts as God has decided), just as Darwin denied the Creation of God (i.e. that God created the world how and when He claims).

-Turretinfan

How does Paul Show Christ to People?

Moses said: "thou shalt not make any ... likeness [to worship it]."

John tells us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, but John does not provide an insight drawing: Instead John writes:

We beheld his glory the glory, as of the only begotton of the Father, full of grace and truth.

That glory is still visible in the pages of Scripture, but is mocked and obscured in gilt paintings.

As Paul put it:

2 Corinthians 4:3-6

3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So then it is by the preached word that we see Jesus, not by gazing at an idol.

-Turretinfan

Why do People think the NIV is better?

It is a perennial amazement to me that many folks actually believe that the NIV is a "better" translation than some of the older translations, such as the KJV.

As a translation, it really is not better. It frequently attempts to convey the sense (as determined by the translation committee) at the expense of the literal expression. When it does this, it mixes the roles of translators and commentators.

Certainly, we must agree that sometimes judgment as to the sense is required when making translation, but the NIV is quite free in many places. This fact was immediately demonstrated by advocates of the traditional translations, but it seems that the word is not out there.

Likewise, we must agree that one could do far worse than the NIV. There are translations that employ deliberation mistranslation (such as the New World translation) and gender confusion (such as some of the feminist translations). There are also translations that are little more than paraphrases of an earlier English translation.

One thing that complicates the analysis is that the NIV relies on the so-called "critical text," rather than the more traditional "majority," "Byzantine," or "textus receptus" texts. In consequence of reliance on the "critical text," in some places the NIV omits material that ought to be included, though some of the omission is at least partially made up through the use of footnotes.

Another thing that complicates the analysis is that the KJV uses some terms that have become non-standard or archaic, or for which the meaning has changed over the years since the KJV was published. Typical anecdotes along this line recount the congregational bafflement over "Suffer the little children" in the KJV text. "Why would God want little children to suffer?" was the punchline question of the humorous account.

Thus, because of the challenges associated with building a varied vocabulary and understanding the beautiful intricacies of the language, some people have attempted to find versions that lack the flower language and challenging vocabulary of the KJV.

Neither of those issues, the translation source document or the wording style, is really a translation issue per se, though both issues are well connected with the translation procedure. The former is a pre-translation consideration, and the latter is a matter of expression - which is well within the freedom of the translators.

This author is not one to call it the New Idiot's Version, but the NIV is simply not that great. If one must have less flowery and precise words, more modern vocabulary, and translation based on the questionable critical texts, then go with the ESV or the NASB, not the NIV.

Please do not get this author started on the TNIV.

-Turretinfan

Timely Post on Sola Scriptura

Here's a timely post on Sola Scriptura (link) that may be of interest those who have been following the debate (link to debate).

-Turretinfan

P.S. And here is some interesting commentary on said post (link).

P.P.S. Linking does not necessarily imply the present author's full approval with the content of the links.

When You Lose Sight of Moses, You Turn to Idols

Thus saith the LORD, by the pen of Moses, in the Second Book of the Law, the Book of Exodus, the Thirty-Second Chapter, First Verse:
Exodus 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

"And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount ..."

Note how the people missed Moses. Moses had become for many of the people the mouthpiece of God. They turned to Moses for advice, for counsel, for guidance and encouragement. To them, Moses was a visual reminder of God's presence.

And consider why Moses delayed to come down: God was giving Moses the law, instructing Moses in how to obey. He had explained the moral law to Moses, and described the creation of the earth in six days. God was providing revelation not so much for Moses' benefit but for the benefit of the people.

Yet the people grew impatient - they wanted a leader.

"... the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron ..."

Notice what happened: the crowd gathered, the mob assembled. The mechanism is not stated: did a few riot leaders sound the horns or did murmurs travel from tent to tent throughout the camp? We do not know. All we know is that Aaron did not call the people, yet the people came to Aaron. Aaron was the good speaker: the man who talked for Moses, though the people knew who was behind the scenes.

The people came to him as the sort of ceremonial head: they recognized his role was ritualistic, not substantive. He did not speak of himself, but reported what Moses told him. Nevertheless, the people - the enormous crowd of work-hardened Egyptian slaves came to Aaron.

" ... and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us ..."

Note the way they phrase their statement, not as a request: "would you please make us gods," but a demand "Up! Make!" The people did not come to Aaron with respect and reverence, but with an order: with a pretty clear implication: do something, or else.

It's worth noting that "gods" here is Elohim: a name of God. It is not "Elohims" (plural) but Elohim itself is already a plural noun. The English translators here followed the custom of providing a literal translation "gods" despite the ambiguity.

Note the purpose of these "gods": to go before the people. That is to say, these "gods" were to provide a visible leadership.

" ... for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt ..."

Notice who the "gods" are supposed to replace: Moses. The people, you see, viewed Moses the miracle-worker as their visible leader. With him out of sight, they were weak. Unable to rely on faith, the evidence of the unseen, they sought an idol: something visible and tangible.

" ... we wot not what is become of him."

For those born in the last 20 years, "wot" means "know." In other words, the people claimed that they did not know what happened to Moses. They seem to be suggesting that Moses is dead, or lost. They are afraid to set foot on the mount to go searching, for a fence has been put up, and it is a capital crime for anyone to set foot on Sinai. But the people are impatient - they want a visible leader, and they want one now.

The underlying problem is significant: we are to walk by faith, not sight. Thomas and the other Apostles were blessed with the tangible presence of Christ. We are not. We must walk by faith in the unseen. We must eschew the error of trying to make God after the image of man: for no painting can represent God. Even a true photograph or hologram of Christ would not suffice, for God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in Spirit and Truth, just as Moses commanded.

Which is what makes this so interesting as a metaphor:

Those who lose sight of Scripture make Icons and Images.

Do you want to see Christ? Look at Genesis! Look at the Psalms! Look at John's Gospel! But don't look at a painted board, or a piece of glazed ceramic, for God is not to be worshiped with the works of men's hands.

Praise be to the Living and True God!

-Turretinfan

Pretext Illustrated

By this new logo (link). Who was it that said that every heresy seeks to justify itself from Scripture? This is nothing new. The logo is cleverly worded to confuse Protestants (who will think that it means Scripture teaches Catholicism, which it does not) while corresponding to the objective of the author of that blog, namely to tack Scripture onto Catholic dogma that never came from Scripture, as S&S has been demonstrating in his on-going series at Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen) (link).

It's one thing for me to note that the "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" or "Catholic Verses" are all imposition of the heresy of Catholicism on the Bible, and another thing to demonstrate it. Hats off to S&S for the latter.

-Turretinfan

P.S. Meanwhile, of course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material like this exemplar (link).

Baptism Debate

Those who enjoyed the Shishko vs. White debate on baptism may enjoy the debate reported here (link).


-Turretinfan

Persecution Update

A martyr in Gaza (link) tortured and killed by those who, if they do not repent, will receive far worse in the life to come. It is a subjectively fearful thing to face torture for Christ, but it is objectively a far more fearful thing to torture someone who is Christ's.

Nevertheless, Saul of Tarsus received mercy, and perhaps the Gazites who did this may yet be turned to the Lord.

May God be Praised!

-Turretinfan

Those following the debate ...

... may be interested to compare the answer I gave (link) regarding how I know Esther and the Johanine epistles to be Scripture, to this answer that I was unaware of (or at least only subconsciously aware of) at the time I wrote my answer. (link) (in accordance with my long-standing policy, since I'm linking to something written by that guy, I'm linking to something roughly the same written by Wesley - link)

-Turretinfan

JP2 in Flames in the Afterlife

Is this an ironic claim or what (link)?

All humor aside, God alone knows the heart.

Since I don't pray to the dead, I don't have to worry about disembodied spirits trying to motion "stop" (cf. link).

But then again, if I didn't listen to Moses' prohibition of necromancy and idol-worship, I'm not going to believe if someone were raised from the dead.

-Turretinfan

P.S. I note that not all Roman Catholics are equally enthused (link).

Methodological/Empirical Criticism of Textual Criticism

One of the rules of thumb of modern textual criticism, is that a scribe is more likely to insert than omit. This rule of thumb needs to be reexamined.

1. Methodological Considerations
The rule of thumb does not appear to have been derived empirically. Instead, the rule of thumb seems to have a popular solution to the dilemma that often faces textual critics: did document 1 add or did document 2 omit?
The supportive reasoning is usually that scribes would have been timid to leave anything (even marginal notes) out, because they would not want to subtract from the Holy Writ. Furthermore, there are occasional examples that can be identified in which a scribe apparently inadvertently copied a marginal note into the text.
Another supportive reasoning is that scribes are more likely to explain something hard than to omit the explanation of something simple. Thus, this reasoning argues that scribes are more likely to provide an explanation than to omit it.
Neither of these tenets, however, appears to be readily testable. The warning against subtracting from Scripture is paired with a warning about adding to Scripture. Furthermore, a hurried scribe might omit an explanation that seemed obvious to the scribe. Thus, neither supporting reasoning is motivationally compelling. Neither supporting reasoning is the result of a method of analysis designed to figure out what errors actually do occur, in order to decide what default rule to use in questionable cases.

2. Empirical Considerations
The known subtractions/omissions heavily favor subtractions as the default error. There are few cases that we can identify where a "sleepy scribe" (as the 19th century collators called them) had inadvertently copied in a marginal note. On the other hand, homoioteleuton is a frequent scribal error.
On top of that, it is clear that transcribing texts by hand was tedious. Taking shortcuts rather than long cuts is a well documented observation of human nature.
Finally, especially early on, marginal material was clearly distinguishable, falling outside the relatively neat columns of letters, and varying in size and hand from the original. In some cases there may have been troubles to distinguish between corrections and commentary, but the unusual situation is more likely to have made the scribe pay attention than doze off.

In view of those two considerations, the present author takes a different default position, namely that all things being equal, it is more likely a careless scribe omitted than that a careless scribe inserted material.

This different default position happens to change the preferred reading of many passages from the modern critical text back to the Textus Receptus, restoring (in this author's opinion) the original fullness of the text.

May God Greatly be Praised,

-Turretinfan

Turn us again, Shine on Us, and We shall be Saved

Psalm 80

1Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. 2Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us. 3Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

This Psalm is so rich theologically. Asaph begins by calling to God, using the metaphor of "giv[ing] ear." God, of course, has no ears; it is just an anthropomorphism asking God to listen.

Notice that Asaph identifies the Shepherd with God by stating that the Shepherd dwells between the cherubim (or cherubims, if you prefer the KJV spelling). The invisible God, dwelling in a cloud, unseeable and not represented with imagery: he is the Shepherd of Israel. The New Testament makes it clear that this same Shepherd is Jesus.

What is interesting is that Asaph appeals to the strength of Shepherd. He asks him to "stir up" his strength. The image is that the Shepherd will make use of the strength at his disposal. Asaph's request is simple: "Save us."

To this simple request, Asaph appends an explanatory refrain "Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved." It's an almost syllogistic refrain:

1) If God turns us to Him; and
2) If God shines on us, then
3) We will be saved.

Notice how Christocentric Asaph's prayer is: it is not "offer us salvation and we will gladly take it." No, Asaph begs for salvation, even begging to be turned. This simple segment of the prayer is the (1) in the syllogism.

4O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people? 5Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink in great measure. 6Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves. 7Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

Now, Asaph turns to (2), the shining of God upon them. Here they have turned, they are praying, but God has not yet showed mercy to them. Instead, they are still suffering under discipline/punishment. Asaph's appeal here is one of begging for pity. Asaph does not demand that God stop punishing immediately. Instead, Asaph humble asks how long this punishment will last, and points out that the punishment is continuing.

8Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. 9Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. 10The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. 11She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. 12Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? 13The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. 14Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; 15And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. 16It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. 17Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. 18So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. 19Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

Finally Asaph puts 1 and 2 together begging for 3. Asaph asks God, in essence, to have mercy appealling not to any right of the people of God, but to God's own purpose. Asaph reminds God that he brought the vine up out of Egypt. The immediate reference here is the nation of Israel, which was brought up from Egypt and planted in Canaan (the Canaanites being ejected by genocide). Asaph reminds God of how Israel flourished, but is now in ruins. Asaph asks God to "look down," not as though God has not seen (for Asaph acknowledges that the people are perishing at the "countenance" of God), but to have pity.

But the vine is also Christ, who was brought up from Egypt and raised in Canaan, but then persecuted to death. Yet, God shone his countenance and raised Christ ("the son of man") from the dead.

And of course, we are united with Christ, as the branches of the vine. We died with him (as Baptism reminds us) and will be raised with Him.

Notice the language that Asaph uses: "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." For Asaph it is all about the activity ("hand ... madest") of God for his own glory ("for thyself").

So to, Asaph ascribes the whole accomplishment to God: "So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name." That is to say: Regenerate us, and we will call on you. It is the message of Scripture and the message of Calvinism: God regenerates and we worship Him. It is God who turns us to Him - it is God who regenerates us for His own glory. It is God who does the work of salvation from beginning to end. If we are saved, so that we will not perish, it is from Him from start to finish.

It is the prayer not only of the nation in distress, but it should be your prayer, dear reader, if you fear judgment for sin.

"Turn us again, be merciful to us, and we will be saved." Christ is sufficient. Praise be to the Shepherd!

-Turretinfan

More of the Same News

Now it's not just chimps (link), but dogs are making choices too. (link) And, interestingly, dogs are behaving more the way humans should (sometimes even than humans do)!

The articles are interesting from another point of view, though, than just as evidence that "free will" (if you simply mean the ability to make choices) is present in other creatures besides man. The articles are also an interesting form of opposition to evolutionism. How so? Dogs apparently have a choice mechanism that is more similar to humans than the choice mechanism of chimps. This means that evolutionism has to make yet another appeal to parallel ("convergent") evolution or re-nest the hierarchy. Either way, the special pleading becomes more evident.

-Turretinfan

Pray for Rain

Apparently the southeast United States is suffering under an unusually severe drought. More than a few Christian brethren live in that part of the World, and a goodly number of them live off the land as farmers. Pray that God will provide for their material need, in this case of water:

(more details) (and especially here)

Such prayer is generally agreeable to God's revealed will:
James 5:16-18
16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. 17Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. 18And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

For those of you who try to communicate with dead people, don't you think it is odd that James did not advise here to ask Elias to pray for us, since he was eminently "good" at obtaining answers to prayer? Isn't the easiest explanation that James would never in a million years have thought of such a thing?

Don't get any ideas,

-Turretinfan

A Word of Encouragement

Just a note of encouragement to my Christian brethren over at TeamPyro (link). I notice that they have new blogroll policy (link). It's pretty neat that they have become popular enough to be able to make demands on those who'd like a link-back! Their graphics are great, as are many of the articles. Another nice feature are the frequent (normally weekly) Spurgeon selections (available as a list here).

Fanning the flames,

-Turretinfan

Atheist Opposes Sola Scriptura

An atheist has weighed in on the topic of the current debate (which could be roughly characterized as "Sufficiency of Scripture vs. Insufficiency of Scripture").
Here's the atheist's critique ("Scripture Only is a Myth"). I'd wager (rhetorically speaking, of course) that the atheist has some of the same misconceptions of Sola Scriptura as does my antagonist in the current debate. Any thoughts?

-Turretinfan

P.S. The present author notes with chagrin that the original post was marred by following the old "i" before "e" rule to phonetic English spelling. Proposed motto for Atheism: "Even our spelling is rebellious." Obviously if one thinks about the etymology ... but anyway ...

A Very Odd Rebuttal

According to the Reformed Covenanter, E. Calvin Beisner wrote:

Original Arminianism affirmed that Christ died as a substitute to pay for the sins of all people. The Federal Visionists will affirm that Christ died to pay the penalty for the sins of all in “the covenant”, including some who will end up in hell. One’s “election” ultimately depends on whether he is “faithful” to “the covenant”, and one can be “justified” and wind up in hell through apostasy. Foreword to G.P. Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Presbyterian and Reformed, p. viii

In response, Doug Wilson wrote:

As I have pointed out elsewhere, this new "Arminianism" holds to God's exhaustive sovereignty over all things, and teaches absolute predestination and maintains that the number of the decretally elect cannot be increased or diminished. If this is Arminianism, then maybe Arminianism is Calvinistic . . . or something. But that is just by the way, a topic for another time.

This is a very odd rebuttal. The accusation is: you teach that Christ's death is partially ineffective, the response is discussion of other issues. What's worse, a Molinist like William Lane Craig would probably be willing to describe his own views as teachings of "absolute predestination and [the position] that the number of the decretally elect cannot be increased or diminished." In other words, it appears that Mr. Wilson either did not read the actual objection, does not understand the historical Calvinism/Arminianism issues, or simply does not take the matter seriously.

Regardless of the explanation, it's very odd.

-Turretinfan

If it be True, Praise Be to the Lord

It has been reported that the Muslim mastermind of the failed first attack on the World Trade Center buildings has converted to Christianity (link). The warden seems skeptical of the claimed conversion.

May God show similar mercy to all his enemies, as he apparently has to Mr. Yousef and ourselves. Don't forget that we too were once God's enemies, and it is only by God's grace that we can be called (like Abraham) a friend of God.

-Turretinfan

'Tis Tradition, Stop vs. Thus the Bible Says

"Orthodox" and I are having a debate that could be roughly characterized as a Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia debate (though neither of those terms is in the resolution.)

Should this sort of thing interest you, stop by and read up, here:

Resolved: "It is tradition, look no further" is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

(link to debate blog)

Don't Teach Creationism in Science Class

Some of my readers may have a knee-jerk reaction to the title of this post (either pro or con). Both are probably wrong: Creationism should not be taught in science in class, it should be taught in history class. The creation of the world and man should be the first two chapters of any school's history curriculum.

Now, it should be fine to mention the historical fact of Creation in science class, but Science class is not the place for teaching Creationism, or the Fall of Rome, or the colonization of the Americas.

On the other hand, evolutionism should not be taught anywhere: it is a lie. All living things are not the result of common biological descent: much of the variety we see is the result of special creation.

There certainly should be some mention of evolutionism in both science and history class, but that mention should be sharply critical.

Will these proposals be widely adopted? Not in countries where "pluralism" and liberalism have already gained dominance. They can and should, however, be adopted in private and especially home education.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God!

Praise be to the Word by whom ALL things were made,

-Turretinfan

Bad News (if true) for Some Arminians

A few Arminians have staked their view of "free will" on the idea that what separates us from the animals is our ability to make rational choices: to wit that this is the "image of God" referred to in Scripture.

Now, with the enormous caveat that the entire study may be rigged, I present the following interesting article which - if true - would be devastating to that Arminian claim (link).

I'm sticking with my claim that "image of God" is authority, as discussed here (link). If you want to argue about what the image of God is, please direct your comments to the combox of that post, rather than this one - so as to keep things tidy.

-Turretinfan

Psalm 105 - He Did What?

Some folks who read through the account in Psalm 105 may surprised - especially when they get down to verse 25.

The Psalm starts off with a call to thankfulness and worship, on account of the deeds that God has done, calling them "wondrous works" and "marvelous works."

The first item to be selected is God's choice of Abraham and Jacob. God chose them for many blessings: but the most important blessing was their personal salvation.

Second is the covenant and oath he made with Abraham and Isaac, and which God confirmed to Jacob/Israel: namely the inheritance of the land of Canaan. As we learn more clearly in Romans and Hebrews, this inheritance was pointing toward heaven.

The Psalmist points out that this promise was made when they were very few and that God protected them, even reproving kings for their sakes. And likewise, God called for a famine in the land, but sent Joseph in slavery to Egypt until the time was right and Joseph was freed. Notice again that God takes credit for sending Joseph in slavery to Egypt. Was it a sinful thing to sell Joseph, yes. And yet God takes credit for the act without any moral responsibility for the sinful act of betrayal by Joseph's brethren.

Furthermore, God not only freed Joseph but made him second to the king of Egypt, even over the leaders of Egypt.

When Israel came to Egypt, God caused Israel to prosper until they were stronger than the Egyptians.

In verse 25, some folks who had not fainted at God's claim to have sent Joseph into Egypt will have cardiac arrest: God says that he "turned their heart to hate his people and to deal subtilly with his servants." It was sinful for them to hate his people and to deal treacherously with them, and yet God takes credit, saying that He turned their heart to do that.

Furtheremore, God punished this hatred by sending Moses and Aaron (also chosen by God) by whom he did many miracles, which each were some form of destruction on the Egyptians.

Finally, he brought forth his people from Egypt, taking the Egyptian's gold, and giving all of the people physical strength. And in the end the Egyptians were glad that the people were gone, because they were afraid of them.

God also brought Israel through the wildernness with a cloud and fire to provide shade by day and light by night. God provided quails and bread and water. God remembered his promise to Abraham and brought forth his people from Egyptian bondage with joy and gladness, and gave them Canaan, so that they might obey him.

It is a picture of salvation: God brings forth his elect from spiritual Egypt - from bondage to sin - with joy and gladness, providing them with spiritual nourishment and bringing them into the promised land: heaven at the end.

It is hard to imagine a more Calvinistic psalm.

As the Psalmist concludes; "Praise ye the LORD!"

-Turretinfan

Response to Pat Condell - With Asides

Pat Condell is an atheist who more or less openly mocks Christianity. Here's an example (link) NOTE BEFORE CLICKING: Blasphemy is used in the video, so don't click if that will cause you to stumble.

Part of the problem, however, is that Pat Condell, as an atheist is unable to distinguish between Christianity and its imitators.

Pat begins by addressing "angry Christians" who have been telling him that they are looking forward to his perishing in hell. If there are Christians who have been saying that, they should be ashamed. Pat is not so much more (if at all more) deserving of hell than we are. It is only by grace that we are saved. Furthermore, God may still save Pat: after all, God saved a far worse persecutor of the church, Saul of Tarsus.

Pat mocks Christians generally as "crazy." It's not surprising. Jesus was similarly insulted by those to whom He preached the gospel of repentance.

Pat suggests that it must be "galling for religious people to see atheists like me going around ... without a shred of guilt or self-loathing ...." Pat seems to have missed the point. Pat does have guilt, though he may not be aware of it. In contrast, Christians do not have guilt, because we have Christ. Furthermore, we reach out to Pat - even when we tell him of his guilt - nor merely to make him realize his sin, but to lead him to the solution to the problem he has: a problem of which he is currently unaware.

It's almost as though Pat is playing with candles on a pile of gunpowder, and then suggesting our calls for him to extinguish the candles is really to spoil his fun or to make him feel nervous.

Pat points out that he is not inclined to pray "or do penance of any kind." It can be seen from that comment that Pat has not really grasped New Testament Christianity, for the New Testament does not call for penance, but repentance.

Then Pat goes off on a claim that if hell does exist, he thinks it is more of place of eternal regret, rather than of eternal torment. Of course, there is no warrant for this claim, though sadly a number of theological liberals have begun to suggest such a thing.

Next, Pat claims that Jesus died for his sins latching hold of errant views on the work of Christ. Pat says he feels "somewhat guilty" that he's not more grateful to Jesus for that, but he says that he wishes that Jesus had asked him before the fact. He says that he now feels as though he is being billed for something that he didn't order.

This atheist's criticism of the "Jesus died for each and every person" misrepresentation is sad, because it could have been avoided by a better presentation of the gospel. Furthermore, the atheist has a good point, which is that the "Jesus died for you" gospel tries to make a person accept Christianity on the basis of an unwanted act.

The atheist points out that if you are a Christian, you are born already in debt. This is true, of course. If you are one of the elect, you are already indebted to Jesus: he has saved you from death by His work on the cross, the least you can do is obey his commandments. Yet it is a debt of gratitude, not a legal debt.

There is a legal debt that all men are born in: namely a debt incurred by sin.

Pat says that the only way you can repay the debt in full is by dying. Pat's not quite right: we can never repay the debt. As to the debt of gratitude, we can simply be grateful eternally. AS to the legal debt, we can only suffer eternally. There is, however, an escape - for if we trust in Christ, we can be confident that He will pay our debt for us.

Pat continues by pointing out that the "Jesus died for you" gospel is like telling a person that they have to pay off a mortgage for a house they already own outright. Although Pat has muddled things a bit, his basic criticism is valid as applied to the "Jesus died for you" gospel. If Jesus already paid the legal debt, then the person no longer owes eternal suffering as the wages of his sin.

Pat continues by asserting that there is no "hard historical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels even existed." In point of fact, however, there are few people of the same generation about whom there is greater hard historical evidence for their existence than the Jesus of the gospels. Pat's claim here borders on the absurd. The gospels themselves are hard historical evidence, after all.

Pat claims that the records we have were written by people who born long after Jesus died. This, however, is clearly mistaken. We do have such records (for example, the testimony of Josephus), but we also have the gospels - written by men who were and interviewed eyewitnesses.

Pat makes an attempted argument from silence as to other (extra-Scriptural) documentation of Jesus' ministry in the secular records of the day. One wonders what writings Pat has in mind? Does Pat suppose that there was a "Jerusalem Daily Tribune" that has been carefully maintained on 1st century microfiche? Where is all this alleged silence evidenced? In point of fact, the argument from silence is bogus. There is not a wealth of contemporary history that all surprisingly omits mention of Jesus, which would be necessary for the argument to carry any force.

Pat mocks Jesus' miracles, claiming that if they were all true, Jesus should have been as famous as Elvis. In point of fact, however, Jesus was famous in his day.


Matthew 9:31 But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.

Mark 1:28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Luke 5:15 But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

Pat claims all we have are second and third hand accounts that have been doctored. In fact, however, as noted above, we have first hand accounts by eyewitnesses.

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Pat also claims that the Word has been edited and translated back and forth so many times that the truth bears no resemblance to itself "if it ever did." Pat's clearly wrong on this again. There are an enormous amount of handwritten copies of the New Testament in essentially unedited form in the original language (and same for the Old), as well as many early and widely various translations into many languages without significant editing. Although there are some (one could even say "many") minor variations in the copies, there can be little serious doubt that the content of the originals is substantially maintained in the collection.

Pat continues by saying that he does not know who we think we are praying to. It's obviously a rhetorical turn, but it's sadly true. Pat does not know God.

Pat suggests that praying to God has not done us much good, and that we should try praying to Elvis and see how that works. Pat's obviously just trying to be funny/inflammatory. The interesting thing, though, is that Pat's somewhat right. Service to God is not particularly rewarding in this life: in fact, because we worship God we get mocked by the likes of Pat. In some parts of the world and some times in history, we can get tortured and killed for worshiping God. Paul says that if we don't consider the afterlife, we are the most miserable of all men.

Furthermore, it should be clear that those who hate God often life good lives and receive many blessings in this life. It's a question that is sometimes addressed in Scripture, simply because it can be discouraging to be following God and seeing no physical benefit for it. Instead, we look forward to a heavenly reward.

After this, Pat suggests that although Jesus is "a storybook character" he still has some wisdom. Pat then calls to mind Jesus' statement that the "kingdom of God is within," and suggests that "angry Christians" don't really believe those words or "turn the other cheek," "forgive trespasses," and "love your enemy." Instead, he suggests that we want punishment, eternal torture, and unimaginable suffering (on this atheist for mocking and blaspheming) for our own satisfaction. Of course, much of these comments are built on the false premises identified above, as well as the misrepresentations of Christianity that are all too common.

The underlying problem, however, is that like certain Roman Catholics (yes, Jonathan, this is the post I had in mind), this atheist views any attempts to present the gospel and warn of eternal damnation as inherently uncharitable. The charge that we are doing so for our own satisfaction is simply a false accusation - or it least it should be: if we bear witness to the truth for reasons of personal antipathy, we should be ashamed.

Then Pat argues that Jesus would not approve of what "people like you [make] of his teachings." Surely, to an extent, that is true. Jesus could not approve of what every person who calls himself a Christian has done with Christ's teachings, for many people have misapplied Christ's teachings. But Pat takes it a step further and suggests that "nobody listened to a word [Jesus] said." Of course, again, this is simply an attempt to be inflammatory. After all, the "keep it to yourself" - "no eternal suffering" - etc. message is what many modern theological liberals teach.

Finally, Pat argues that Jesus consequently wasted his breath and life. If the Arminian position were correct, it would seem to partially validate the atheist's claim, for Jesus would have died in vain for the recalcitrant atheist. But, of course, the Arminian position is mistaken. God sent his son to save "whosoever believeth in Him" i.e. the elect.

Pat signs off the message with "Peace," but there can be no core peace between the atheist and the Christian. We can avoid being at each other's throats - I can buy baked beans from an atheist and hold a pleasant conversation with him. Nevertheless, the gospel is spiritual warfare, and atheism is the spiritual enemy: either Atheism is right or Christianity is right, there is no middle ground (despite the claims of Islam etc. etc.).

Praise be to Our Most High God!

-Turretinfan

Murder Update

So, Texas plans to execute just judgment on a man convicted of two capital offenses (two murders, under particularly heinous circumstances - a factor that matters under Texas law). The former governor of Texas, and now president of the U.S. wants to prevent this execution, because he claims it will harm U.S. interests abroad. (source)

This may seem strange. After all the "Black and Whites" gang has less international sympathy than Al Quaeda, yet the president has sent troops abroad to kill members of the latter murderous group.

What's the problem? Texas police apparently failed to assist the criminal by telling him that he could seek the help of the Mexican consulate. The "International Court of Justice" a body with no jurisdiction in the U.S. (and with whose interpretation of the relevant treaty, the president disagrees), has decided that the execution would be improper.

Let us pray that justice will prevail, and that Texas will do what is right.

Let us also pray for this young man who has given strong indication of need for salvation.

-Turretinfan

Unlocking James, Scripture WAS Fulfilled

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

In the midst of misconceptions regarding the justifying role of works in James writing, it is easy to overlook four small words. Note how James says: "the Scripture was fulfilled." It is easy to rush past these words and on to the imputation of righteousness and the calling of Abraham the "Friend of God."

What does James mean that Scripture was fulfilled? James means that Scripture's truth was verified, that Scripture's claim that Abraham was justified by faith and that Abraham was considered God's friend were proved by Abraham's obedience: by the works that Abraham did.

It may seem like a strange claim, for the two Scriptural records of Abraham being God's friend are long after Abraham's life. 2 Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8 recall God's friendship toward Abraham.

Even the account in Genesis 15, where it is written:

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

was penned by the hand of Moses long after the event.

It is even more strange if we will examine the chronology of Abraham's own life: for the promise mentioned was that God would give Abraham more children than the number of stars Abraham could see in the sky - but Abraham was childless and was asking that God would bless Abraham's favorite slave. Yet it is said at the moment that Abraham believed God: and that it was counted to Abraham for righteousness.

So then, if we are to ask when Abraham was justified before God, we would say then, before Isaac was born. Yet, James refers us not to the moment, but later:

James 2:21-22
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

In other words you could see Abraham's trust in God demonstrated by the works that Abraham did. A man who did not trust God like this:

Genesis 22:10-18
10And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. 15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

could not sacrifice his only son.

But in virtue of these promises:

Genesis 15:1-5
1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 17:1-4
1And 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. 2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Abraham believed, and his trust in God was confirmed ("perfected") by his obedience.

For Scripture tells us:
Hebrews 11:17-19
17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

God brought forth Isaac from the dead, 99 year old loins of Abraham, and Abraham trusted God so much that Abraham even believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead - though God had not previously done so in the history of man. Thus, Abraham obeyed - and by obedience demonstrated his faith on account of which righteousness was imputed to him, and he was called God's friend.

This then is what we should learn from those four small words (three in Greek): "επληρωθη η γραφη" (the Scripture was fulfilled), that Abraham's justification was made manifest by His works: not so much so that God might know, for God knows the heart, but that we might know. Thus, Abraham is part of that "great cloud of witnesses" that testify to us of their faith on the pages of Scripture: one of those people who faith in God is demonstrated in acts performed by faith, namely by works.

They are justified by faith, and they are justified by works: the former to God and the latter to us. Justification by faith is judicial, but by works is practical.

Thus James writes:

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

And James compares faith that is unaccompanied by works to a corpse:

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Just as he said before:

James 2:14-17
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James point is that an indemonstrable faith is not faith. Faith is demonstrated in works - a faith of mere assertion ("be warmed and filled") without demonstration ("ye give them not [food and shelter]") is worthless.

Thus, John says the same thing:
1 John 3:14-19
14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

And again:
1 John 4:20 - 5:3
20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. 5:1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Our deeds of love show our heart of love. Hypocrisy is possible: we can pretend to be good while hating our brethren; nevertheless, it is our works that confirm our heart.

The apostles did not invent this principle, though, it is Jesus' own teaching:

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Thus, works justify us in the eyes of man, and Christ's work in which we trust justifies us before God.

Great is Our Lord, and Worthy to be Praised, Let us Praise Him!

-Turretinfan

Revelation 17:17

Revelation 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

This verse demonstrates that God can put things in peoples hearts so that they do what He wants them to do, without destroying their will: for we see that they do not just give their kingdom unto the beast but agree. And also that God can sinlessly put it in the heart of man to sin: for the beast is an enemy of God:

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And we say that their union with the beast is not just union together, but union against the Christ:

Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Revelation 19:11-13
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

It is by union with the beast that kings will be destroyed, and yet it is God who put it in their heart to agree and give their kingdom to the beast. Will someone ask how God can set them up for destruction and then destroy them? The answer is that God is the Creator: He can do whatever he pleases with his creation. For it is written:

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

-Turretinfan

The Decalogue - Logical Prioritization of the First Table

First Table
Intro: I am the Lord => God is and who God is
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods => WHO must be worshipped
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image => HOW he must be worshiped
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain => MANNER of worship
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy => HOW MUCH/WHEN we worship


It is required that we obey all of the law of God, but there is a beautiful logical priority to the first table going from most essential (intro) to least essential (Sabbath).

-Turretinfan

Another Triumph for Creationism

Scientists have apparently discovered the function of the appendix (link). The precise function may come as a surprise to some people, but it is yet another item that can be crossed off the list of allegedly unnecessary parts of the human anatomy: an early "proof" of evolution.

The Potter knew His craft.

QED

Praise be to Him who formed us,

-Turretinfan

Status Report

This blogger is officially inundated. Please don't take it personally if your comment has not been moderated yet.

One quick point of interest. One reader pointed me here (link), and asked for my reaction. Aside from the rather obvious "Mary cannot hear you, she doesn't speak Latin or English, and she's with the Lord, while her body remains in the grave," there's little to say that has not already been said by "Josh" in the comments section of that post.

Some of the metaphors are more of a stretch than others, and the Ezekiel metaphor is practically obscene in context (take my word for it, or disgust yourself). As Josh aptly notes, some of the metaphors ought to point to Christ, not Mary. In any event, the blessed mother of our Lord was the recipient of grace not reward.

Whoever believes on His Name, those are His mother and brethren,

-Turretinfan

Notable Quotable - Non-Responsiveness

The Testimony of the Man

"if a man is not willing or able to defend his own arguments, he is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly" (source)

Thrice (at least) the man's arguments were rebutted by the present author

(link) (link) (link) (link)

The man's unwillingness or inability to defend his own arguments was demonstrated

(link).

Thus, according to the man, the man is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly.

On the other hand, the man finds plenty of pretexts (link) (link) (link) to mention a certain elder whom he claims has "ignore[d] literally a dozen or more of my in-depth critiques of his work" (source).

Finally, from the same man comes the claim: "Two times refuting his charges is more than enough. He wouldn't deserve any further attention or publicity if he wants to engage in a one-way monologue / preaching exercise. He can always preach to his buddies. Why should I waste my valuable time?" (source)

One assumes that the elder about whom the man is fond of complaining has reached a similar conclusion. Indeed, the man himself states (speaking about the elder):

"If he chooses not to respond to a critique (or to my two challenges to engage in debate in his chat room), it's because his critics are idiots. If I choose to not respond to some [opposing] screed, it is because I am supposedly an idiot and a coward. See how it works (the [other side] is always at fault, any way you look at it)? Very convenient double standard there, isn't it?" (source) (side identification and link to the two challenges omitted)

The present author notes that this creates an interesting (is it triple or quadruple?) standard.

-Turretinfan

A Brief Challenge to Orthodox

Dear Orthodox,

You've been providing a lot of comments to this blog recently, most of them in disagreement with things I've offered.

How about we formalize the disagreement in the form of a debate?

I would happy to defend the thesis: "Resolved: 'It is tradition, look no further' is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.'"

You'll recognize that the former mantra is attributed to an early Greek father, and the latter mantra is attributed to "fundamentalist" adherents to Sola Scriptura.

I'm open to counterproposals as well.

-Turretinfan

Textual Criticism Reading Suggestions

Someone asked where a good place to start in studying textual critical issues is. Here are my recommendations:

1. "Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism," by Dr. Gordon Clark (link). This is a great introduction piece, and not a major reading assignment. Written by a Reformed philosophy professor who is know with the Lord, this article addresses some serious flaws in the basic assumptions of modern textual criticism.

2. "Textual Criticism of the New Testament," by Prof. B. B. Warfield (link). This is a somewhat legnthier work, designed for the introduction of seminary students to the field of textual criticism. As far as a description of the "science" up to the point when Warfield wrote, it is an excellent work, which fairly describes the work being performed. Warfield is a noted Reformed author, though not the present author's favorite. A weakness of this particular work is its seeming acceptance of textual critical first principles as established matters of scientific fact, rather than assumptions that have been customary in New Testament work.

3. "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students," by F. H. Scrivener (link). This book comes recommended by Prof. Warfield, and really seems to be perhaps the best way to get thoroughly acquainted with the state of textual cricism immediately prior to the work of Messrs. Wescott and Hort. Scrivener contributed enormously to the field of textual criticism. Reading his work can really give one a feel for many of the pressures and complications involved in the process of textual criticism. This book was apparently designed for student use, and Scrivener includes many interesting anecdotes scattered among the lengthy and thorough discourse.

None of the authors above are KJV-O, nor truly is the following:

4. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels," by Dean Burgon. Sadly, none of Dean Burgon's major books have been scanned (or at least the scans have not been made public) by the Google archiving teams, and no other site appears to have performed any similar service. Nevertheless, a summary of the book can be obtained here (link). Whether one is in favor of or opposed to the traditional text, Dean Burgon's writings are worth persual. The Dean Burgon Society seems to have become even more attached (if that is possible) to the traditional text than their namessake, but they are certainly one noted source of counter-argument in the textual critical debate.

5. Finally, I'd be remiss as a Fan of Turretin, to omit mention of this interesting article discussion Textual Criticism as it relates to Prof. Turretin (link). I cannot possibly recommend this article without allegations of improper bias, so I will simply note that the article is available, and includes the writings of one of the Reformation's great authors.

Praise be to God who has preserved the truth over time,

-Turretinfan