Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Category Fail(ure) - "Especially Sinners"
Those in the younger generation are familiar with the "fail" lingo, and the (ure) is for the rest of us who still appreciate proper grammar. Anyhow, Catholic News Service reports the pope as saying that "Padre" Pio had a "total willingness to welcome the faithful, especially sinners" - to whom or what is not specified.
The category error is the implication that some of the faithful are not sinners. Scripture is clear that all have sinned - all are sinners. Now, perhaps someone will come here and tell us that the pope is using special papal jargon and that "sinners" here means only those with especially serious sin.
If one's goal were simply to try to find an orthodox interpretation of the pope's words, one might even point to a passage of the speech a bit further down where it spoke of the "conversion of sinners" as supportive a special sense of the term.
But that would be a stretch. It's more probable that the pope was committing the same category error we see in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church":
The catechism is wrong. He does not intercede for all men (at least not "all" in the sense of "each and every"), but only for the elect. He does not intercede for any but those who need intercession, namely sinners. He is the only intercessor for all men, but he is not the intercessor for each man. So likewise, all men are sinners, and thus the "especially sinners" would not (but for the faulty presuppositions implicit) provide any further limitation on his intercession.
The bottom line? No matter what the pope or the catechism say, Scripture tells us:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-TurretinFan
The category error is the implication that some of the faithful are not sinners. Scripture is clear that all have sinned - all are sinners. Now, perhaps someone will come here and tell us that the pope is using special papal jargon and that "sinners" here means only those with especially serious sin.
If one's goal were simply to try to find an orthodox interpretation of the pope's words, one might even point to a passage of the speech a bit further down where it spoke of the "conversion of sinners" as supportive a special sense of the term.
But that would be a stretch. It's more probable that the pope was committing the same category error we see in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church":
2634 Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners. He is "able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." The Holy Spirit "himself intercedes for us . . . and intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."- CCC 2634
The catechism is wrong. He does not intercede for all men (at least not "all" in the sense of "each and every"), but only for the elect. He does not intercede for any but those who need intercession, namely sinners. He is the only intercessor for all men, but he is not the intercessor for each man. So likewise, all men are sinners, and thus the "especially sinners" would not (but for the faulty presuppositions implicit) provide any further limitation on his intercession.
The bottom line? No matter what the pope or the catechism say, Scripture tells us:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-TurretinFan
Criticism, Complaints, or Whatever
So, I realize that not everyone is pleased by the comments moderation policy on this blog. Today, I've created a blog that I intend to let serve as an "open forum" for folks to air their grievances, gripes, complaints, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, this is a test of the feasibility of such an approach. Hopefully it will go well and serve as an outlet for folks who feel I'm suppressing them, while keeping this blog relatively tidy. You can continue to comment here on this blog, or if you like you can leave the same comment on both blogs, so as to help folks see what comments of yours are not getting through on this blog.
Anyhow, without further ado, here's the link: Criticism of Turretinfan.
-TurretinFan
Anyhow, without further ado, here's the link: Criticism of Turretinfan.
-TurretinFan
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 18
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Malachi 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Malachi 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Universalism
There's an old tale - I don't recall where I first heard it, or I'd give credit where it is due. Perhaps it was from a family member, who got it from whence I don't know. The story goes:
Old Woman: I hear there is a new pastor in town.
Old Man: Oh? Is he any good?
OW: An excellent speaker - everyone who goes enjoys the sermon.
OM: None of that "fire and brimstone" eh?
OW: Oh, no! Certainly not! This young man actually insists that there is no hell. Everyone will be saved.
OM: Well, if he's right we don't need him, and if he's wrong we don't want him.
The old man's common sense hits a form of universalism on the nose. If there is no hell, and everyone goes to heaven, it would seem that there is no real point in believing this doctrine.
There are, of course, other branches of universalism. One branch that is making its rounds these days calls its "Evangelical Universalism" and tries to convince folks that eventually everyone will be saved - though some will have to go to hell first, because they fail to believe in this life.
In some ways, this is a less serious error than the more traditional "there is no hell" form of Universalism. It's still plainly wrong because the Bible teaches the finality and perpetuity of hell. For example, Scripture both in the Old Testament and the New Testament speaks of this:
Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (identical statement at vss. 46 and 48)
Yes, there is a hell, and yes it is eternal - not of finite duration. Therefore, there is an urgency to repent and believe now, not simply to avoid a stretch of unpleasantness in hell but to avoid an eternity there. If you have not done so, repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ alone for salvation.
-TurretinFan
Old Woman: I hear there is a new pastor in town.
Old Man: Oh? Is he any good?
OW: An excellent speaker - everyone who goes enjoys the sermon.
OM: None of that "fire and brimstone" eh?
OW: Oh, no! Certainly not! This young man actually insists that there is no hell. Everyone will be saved.
OM: Well, if he's right we don't need him, and if he's wrong we don't want him.
The old man's common sense hits a form of universalism on the nose. If there is no hell, and everyone goes to heaven, it would seem that there is no real point in believing this doctrine.
There are, of course, other branches of universalism. One branch that is making its rounds these days calls its "Evangelical Universalism" and tries to convince folks that eventually everyone will be saved - though some will have to go to hell first, because they fail to believe in this life.
In some ways, this is a less serious error than the more traditional "there is no hell" form of Universalism. It's still plainly wrong because the Bible teaches the finality and perpetuity of hell. For example, Scripture both in the Old Testament and the New Testament speaks of this:
Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (identical statement at vss. 46 and 48)
Yes, there is a hell, and yes it is eternal - not of finite duration. Therefore, there is an urgency to repent and believe now, not simply to avoid a stretch of unpleasantness in hell but to avoid an eternity there. If you have not done so, repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ alone for salvation.
-TurretinFan
The Potter or the Carpenter
God is the potter and we are the clay. He sovereignly determines who to form as vessels of wrath and whom to form as vessels of mercy. Both in some sense show forth the love of God: while the former show his patience and longsuffering, the latter show the forth the full richness of his love.
Some folks are not happy about this. They would deny to God the right to do with his creation as he sees fit. They do not think it is fair that God would create some vessels for wrath (usually there is no complaint about people being created as vessels for mercy).
Others are not quite so bold as to complain about that. They tack a slightly different tack. They suggest that God is unfair in picking some rather than others without reference to something about the person himself. They argue that this is arbitrary which, they think, makes no sense or is unjust.
One comment that seems to come from this perspective of complaint against the Biblical model of sovereignty is a comment I recently read from GodIsMyJudge. Criticizing the Calvinist view of election, he stated:
This kind of criticism has a patina of validity: wouldn't a good carpenter pick the best nails for the job? Of course he would! He wouldn't pick short nails where long nails would be better, or vice versa.
The problem with the example is that it treats God as finding men as pre-existing objects. It is the problem that lies beneath the error of Molinism and middle knowledge.
Both Molinism and this analogy treat God as essentially "finding" men "as is" and then basing his decrees on that which did not come from Him. This is contrary both to the Scriptural analogy and to sound reason.
The Scriptural analogy is that of a potter. The potter begins with clay, not nails of a previously (and externally) determined length. He builds the pots according to the purposes he has for them, not the other way 'round. He does not build a pot and then think, "Hmm ... this would make a nice vase" or "Hmm ... looks like this is going to have to be an ash-tray." God does not create at random and then make do with what luck or fate gives him. He does not simply roll cosmic dice. No, God makes pots the way he wants them to be.
This contrasts with the analogy of a carpenter building a house who simply finds himself with some short nails and some long nails and makes the best of what he finds. Of course, that analogy itself conflicts with sound reason.
If a carpenter were going to build a house he would not (unless forced to) simply resort to a bag full of a random assortment of nails. Instead, a reasonable carpenter would plan ahead and count the costs and so forth before he begins. He doesn't want to build half the house only to find out that he doesn't have enough long nails to continue.
No, instead a wise (and sufficiently well-funded) carpenter would purchase suitable materials for the purpose in advance. He would figure out how many long nails he wanted and purchase that number - same for the short nails.
But Molinism and the analogy GodIsMyJudge provided make God out to be an underfunded carpenter, making the best of the hand that's been dealt him, as it were. Recall that in Molinism God does not decide how a man will react to particular circumstances, he simply discovers this fact via middle knowledge. He then makes the best of men's choices - they dictate the size - and perhaps shape - of the house.
In this scenario, God considers himself lucky that there are so many people who choose to believe, which gives him that many more longer nails. The longer nails, you see, are differentiable from the shorter nails not by the choice of the carpenter but by their own choice: it is something they did, not something they received.
But that's not the way of Scripture. Scripture declares:
1 Corinthians 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
Not even faith fits that bill, for it is the fruit of the Spirit:
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Thus salvation, including faith, is called the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
So, even our faith is something we receive - it's not something of our own that differentiates us from another. We are what we are by God's grace. He is the potter and we are the clay.
-TurretinFan
Some folks are not happy about this. They would deny to God the right to do with his creation as he sees fit. They do not think it is fair that God would create some vessels for wrath (usually there is no complaint about people being created as vessels for mercy).
Others are not quite so bold as to complain about that. They tack a slightly different tack. They suggest that God is unfair in picking some rather than others without reference to something about the person himself. They argue that this is arbitrary which, they think, makes no sense or is unjust.
One comment that seems to come from this perspective of complaint against the Biblical model of sovereignty is a comment I recently read from GodIsMyJudge. Criticizing the Calvinist view of election, he stated:
But whatever God’s other reason was, it couldn’t be related to some good quality or disposition in us. Let’s say I am building a house and need one nail. Even though my end goal is to build the house, I would still pick longer nails over short ones if the job called for it. In that case longer nails are more suitable for my purpose, so this example can’t be representative of unconditional election. But if any nail will do and all the nails are the same, then I don’t care which one I pick out of a jar full of nails. So in this way, whatever the other reason is, it doesn’t explain why one was chosen and another rejected.(source)
This kind of criticism has a patina of validity: wouldn't a good carpenter pick the best nails for the job? Of course he would! He wouldn't pick short nails where long nails would be better, or vice versa.
The problem with the example is that it treats God as finding men as pre-existing objects. It is the problem that lies beneath the error of Molinism and middle knowledge.
Both Molinism and this analogy treat God as essentially "finding" men "as is" and then basing his decrees on that which did not come from Him. This is contrary both to the Scriptural analogy and to sound reason.
The Scriptural analogy is that of a potter. The potter begins with clay, not nails of a previously (and externally) determined length. He builds the pots according to the purposes he has for them, not the other way 'round. He does not build a pot and then think, "Hmm ... this would make a nice vase" or "Hmm ... looks like this is going to have to be an ash-tray." God does not create at random and then make do with what luck or fate gives him. He does not simply roll cosmic dice. No, God makes pots the way he wants them to be.
This contrasts with the analogy of a carpenter building a house who simply finds himself with some short nails and some long nails and makes the best of what he finds. Of course, that analogy itself conflicts with sound reason.
If a carpenter were going to build a house he would not (unless forced to) simply resort to a bag full of a random assortment of nails. Instead, a reasonable carpenter would plan ahead and count the costs and so forth before he begins. He doesn't want to build half the house only to find out that he doesn't have enough long nails to continue.
No, instead a wise (and sufficiently well-funded) carpenter would purchase suitable materials for the purpose in advance. He would figure out how many long nails he wanted and purchase that number - same for the short nails.
But Molinism and the analogy GodIsMyJudge provided make God out to be an underfunded carpenter, making the best of the hand that's been dealt him, as it were. Recall that in Molinism God does not decide how a man will react to particular circumstances, he simply discovers this fact via middle knowledge. He then makes the best of men's choices - they dictate the size - and perhaps shape - of the house.
In this scenario, God considers himself lucky that there are so many people who choose to believe, which gives him that many more longer nails. The longer nails, you see, are differentiable from the shorter nails not by the choice of the carpenter but by their own choice: it is something they did, not something they received.
But that's not the way of Scripture. Scripture declares:
1 Corinthians 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
Not even faith fits that bill, for it is the fruit of the Spirit:
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Thus salvation, including faith, is called the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
So, even our faith is something we receive - it's not something of our own that differentiates us from another. We are what we are by God's grace. He is the potter and we are the clay.
-TurretinFan
Beyond the Looking-Glass: Exegesis and Humpty Dumpty
One of my favorite works of fiction for children is the Alice pair: "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass." Although there is a lot of silliness in the work, a few of the points that are made have worked their way into popular thought. One of the characters in the work is Humpty Dumpty.
Humpty Dumpty, as you ought know, is the fairy-tale egg that sat on the wall, but in "Through the Looking Glass" he has a conversation with the main character Alice:
In this dialog, Humpty Dumpty is using words in a sense that is quite far from their ordinary sense and insisting that he is perfectly within his rights to do so. It would be problematic if people spoke this way, since we would always have to ask them to explain what they mean. Thankfully, normal people are not so obtuse as to use "glory" to mean "a nice knock-down argument" or "impenetrability" to mean "we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
Humpty Dumpty is an obviously silly character, who pays off words to mean what he wants them to mean. As silly as he is, though, one can imagine a still sillier character: one who pays off words used by someone else to mean what he wants them to mean. This reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism is sadly far too common - and it comes in two forms.
The first form of reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism comes in the form of those who eisegete a disputed text. Thus, for example, there are those who practice reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism in the discussion of John 3:16. The reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ist will insist that "so" in "For God so loved the world" is intensive (rather than demonstrative) and that "world" means "each and every person." Why? Well, apparently this reverse Humpty Dumpty paid off the words to mean what he wants them to mean. That's not the sense the author (or translator) of the words intended, but that doesn't matter to the reverse Humpty Dumpty.
The second form of reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism finds itself expressed in folks who refuse to accept someone else's explanation of his own words. We see this from time to time from the papists who insist that we mean "papist" as an insult or that we mean "pope-worshiper" by "papist" even when we provide explanation that this is not the case. These are the sorts of easily-ridiculed folks who insist not only that they are the masters of language but that they are the masters of our language: that they (not we) determine the meaning of the words that come out of our mouths.
It is one thing to object with Alice that "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," and it quite another to insist that Humpty Dumpty means glory in the usual sense. The former is a quirky obtuseness, the latter is an antisocial bullheadedness. After all, it is simply a part of honest dialog to let the person with whom one is conversing speak for themselves: putting words in their mouth via reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism is simply nefarious.
Thankfully, again, such persons are few who will not accept the explanation of what a person means. There only a few buffoons who will continue to insist "Oh no, you mean 'x'" after you have explained that you mean 'y'. Not so with those who eisegete Scripture.
Sadly there are many who would never do this with another person's words, but will do this with the text of Scripture. The investigation with such people ceases to be an honest inquiry into what the author (or translator) meant by the word but an exercise in power:
We cannot with Alice directly interrogate the text:
Thus, in the case of John 3:16 we will discover that "so" is demonstrative and that "world" is never specifically personal in John's writings. Thus, through careful study of what John meant, we can ascertain the sense of his words, rather than pulling a reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism.
To do this, we need to be careful not to let our preconceptions be the guide. We need to assiduously avoid approaching the Bible as though it were there for us to extract support from. Instead, we should treat the Bible as the Word of God: even if we do not respect our fellow men enough to let them speak for themselves, we should respect God enough to let his Word speak for itself.
-TurretinFan
Humpty Dumpty, as you ought know, is the fairy-tale egg that sat on the wall, but in "Through the Looking Glass" he has a conversation with the main character Alice:
`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'- Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter VI
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'
`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
`Ah, you should see `em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: `for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell YOU.)
In this dialog, Humpty Dumpty is using words in a sense that is quite far from their ordinary sense and insisting that he is perfectly within his rights to do so. It would be problematic if people spoke this way, since we would always have to ask them to explain what they mean. Thankfully, normal people are not so obtuse as to use "glory" to mean "a nice knock-down argument" or "impenetrability" to mean "we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
Humpty Dumpty is an obviously silly character, who pays off words to mean what he wants them to mean. As silly as he is, though, one can imagine a still sillier character: one who pays off words used by someone else to mean what he wants them to mean. This reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism is sadly far too common - and it comes in two forms.
The first form of reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism comes in the form of those who eisegete a disputed text. Thus, for example, there are those who practice reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism in the discussion of John 3:16. The reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ist will insist that "so" in "For God so loved the world" is intensive (rather than demonstrative) and that "world" means "each and every person." Why? Well, apparently this reverse Humpty Dumpty paid off the words to mean what he wants them to mean. That's not the sense the author (or translator) of the words intended, but that doesn't matter to the reverse Humpty Dumpty.
The second form of reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism finds itself expressed in folks who refuse to accept someone else's explanation of his own words. We see this from time to time from the papists who insist that we mean "papist" as an insult or that we mean "pope-worshiper" by "papist" even when we provide explanation that this is not the case. These are the sorts of easily-ridiculed folks who insist not only that they are the masters of language but that they are the masters of our language: that they (not we) determine the meaning of the words that come out of our mouths.
It is one thing to object with Alice that "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," and it quite another to insist that Humpty Dumpty means glory in the usual sense. The former is a quirky obtuseness, the latter is an antisocial bullheadedness. After all, it is simply a part of honest dialog to let the person with whom one is conversing speak for themselves: putting words in their mouth via reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism is simply nefarious.
Thankfully, again, such persons are few who will not accept the explanation of what a person means. There only a few buffoons who will continue to insist "Oh no, you mean 'x'" after you have explained that you mean 'y'. Not so with those who eisegete Scripture.
Sadly there are many who would never do this with another person's words, but will do this with the text of Scripture. The investigation with such people ceases to be an honest inquiry into what the author (or translator) meant by the word but an exercise in power:
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'When we investigate Scripture, we need to let the Scriptures themselves be the guide and master as to their meaning, just as we would do for someone with whom we are speaking.
We cannot with Alice directly interrogate the text:
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`Nevertheless we can seek out that answer with a variety of tools, such as looking to the context, the original languages, and the other usages of a particular word by the same author.
Thus, in the case of John 3:16 we will discover that "so" is demonstrative and that "world" is never specifically personal in John's writings. Thus, through careful study of what John meant, we can ascertain the sense of his words, rather than pulling a reverse-Humpty-Dumpty-ism.
To do this, we need to be careful not to let our preconceptions be the guide. We need to assiduously avoid approaching the Bible as though it were there for us to extract support from. Instead, we should treat the Bible as the Word of God: even if we do not respect our fellow men enough to let them speak for themselves, we should respect God enough to let his Word speak for itself.
-TurretinFan
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 17
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 16
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1 Corinthians 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1 Corinthians 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Papist Propaganda
propaganda
1718, from Mod.L. propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. abl. fem. gerundive of L. propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative.
(source)
That's all well and good, but I actually want to highlight one of the recent propaganda (modern sense) items provided by a few papists on the word "papist." One of those items is that word was originally conceived by those persecuting the papists.
papist
1534, "adherent of the Pope," from M.Fr. papiste, from papa "Pope," from Church L. papa (see pope).
(source)
Notice the actual etymology - not a term of English coinage but a borrow word from Middle French. Moreover, while the term certainly was employed at times when the papacy was resolutely opposed in England, the "persecution" as it is sometimes characterized was not principally religious in nature.
Papists were perceived as a political threat to at least some of the folks in the English Monarchy, especially Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. This was not simply a pretense to put down Catholicism, but a genuine and legitimate concern coming out of the medieval period during which the popes and their minions frequently meddled in the political affairs of Europe.
So, in short, no. The term "papist" was not coined as derogatory term, nor need it carry derogatory connotations. It does not (contrary to the most bizarre piece of propaganda I recently received) mean "pope worshiper." Although some people do use it in a derogatory manner, you will not find this blogger using it that way, but rather in a way that is descriptive of ecclesiology. Yes, some dictionaries have seen fit to label it as derogatory, but hopefully any sincere papists who read this blog will not fall prey to propaganda but will look to the intention of the word, which highlights an important difference in church structure between us.
-TurretinFan
1718, from Mod.L. propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. abl. fem. gerundive of L. propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative.
(source)
That's all well and good, but I actually want to highlight one of the recent propaganda (modern sense) items provided by a few papists on the word "papist." One of those items is that word was originally conceived by those persecuting the papists.
papist
1534, "adherent of the Pope," from M.Fr. papiste, from papa "Pope," from Church L. papa (see pope).
(source)
Notice the actual etymology - not a term of English coinage but a borrow word from Middle French. Moreover, while the term certainly was employed at times when the papacy was resolutely opposed in England, the "persecution" as it is sometimes characterized was not principally religious in nature.
Papists were perceived as a political threat to at least some of the folks in the English Monarchy, especially Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. This was not simply a pretense to put down Catholicism, but a genuine and legitimate concern coming out of the medieval period during which the popes and their minions frequently meddled in the political affairs of Europe.
So, in short, no. The term "papist" was not coined as derogatory term, nor need it carry derogatory connotations. It does not (contrary to the most bizarre piece of propaganda I recently received) mean "pope worshiper." Although some people do use it in a derogatory manner, you will not find this blogger using it that way, but rather in a way that is descriptive of ecclesiology. Yes, some dictionaries have seen fit to label it as derogatory, but hopefully any sincere papists who read this blog will not fall prey to propaganda but will look to the intention of the word, which highlights an important difference in church structure between us.
-TurretinFan
Friday, June 19, 2009
Springboarding off of Hays Against Molinism
Background:
Steve Hays (Calvinist) wrote: God's freedom is sui generis. It doesn't fall into either model of human agent theory, whether libertarian or determinist.
GodIsMyJudge (Molinist) wrote: Determinate and indeterminate seem like mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Are you suggesting there is some third category we don't know about or perhaps this is a logical paradox?
(source)
God's Will not Like Man's Will:
GodIsMyJudge's question misses part of the reason for Steve's comment. God's will is not like man's will. There is an analogy, but it is not a correspondence. God's will (his secret will - his decree of Providence) is not something time-bound. It is not something that begins from existing circumstances and produces a choice that is responsive to the circumstances in which it finds itself. It itself determines all circumstances. The decrees of God are his eternal purposes according to the counsel of his will, whereby - for his own glory - he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.
The will's decision itself (that is to say, the decree of God) is not something that comes to pass. It is an eternal purpose of God. There was never a time when it was not.
Sometimes, for analytical purposes, we treat it as though we viewed it as active, but it is not. There is no time before God's will chooses what it chose - it is an eternal decree.
Relation to Knowledge of God:
This issue has a bearing on the discussion of the knowledge of God. What GodIsMyJudge seems to have overlooked is that in both the Molinist and Calvinist understanding, God's decrees are eternal - they do not come to be. The order that we discuss is simply a logical order - not a temporal order.
Thus, the Calvinist logical order is as follows:
1) Natural Knowledge
2) Decree
3) Free Knowledge
Whereas the Molinist logical order is as follows:
1) Natural Knowledge
2) Partial Decree
3) Middle Knowledge
4) Rest of Decree
5) Free Knowledge
Comparison to Human Will:
But both Molinists and Calvinists agree that this is simply a logical not a temporal order.
In contrast, human wills (in both systems) operate with temporal order:
1) Nature
2) Circumstance
3) Decree
That is an order that is both logical and temporal. First, there is our nature. This is something that is a given. Next, we and our nature encounter a specific circumstance. Sometimes that circumstance is largely of our making, other times we had nothing to do with the circumstance. Finally, in the circumstance, we make a choice.
Observation about Molinism:
Oddly enough, although Molinism advocates "Libertarian" free will (as opposed to simple, Calvinistic free will), Molinism essentially makes man's decree a product of his nature and his circumstance, such that if the same nature is placed in the same circumstance man's decree will be the same.
Functionally, that sounds quite deterministic. The Molinist insists that the choices are free in a "libertarian" and "indeterminate" sense, but it really isn't apparent how that is possible or even credible. In the Molinist regime, it really looks like man's choices are essentially the product of his circumstances.
Conclusion
I don't want to get too sidetracked by pointing out the apparent inconsistency of Molinism. I understand (I think) the rationale behind GodIsMyJudge's question: he'd like to have Steve say that God has libertarian free will, to open the door to the idea that man could also have libertarian free will. The problem, however, is that while God and man both have wills - they operate in very different ways. In fact, even saying "operate" is a word that is only analogous when speaking of God's will.
No, God is the only uncaused cause. He is the only self-existent being, and his choices are eternal - they did not come into being indeterminately or determinately - they simply did not come into being, but always were. Therein lies the fallacy in, under, or behind the question posed by GodIsMyJudge.
-TurretinFan
Steve Hays (Calvinist) wrote: God's freedom is sui generis. It doesn't fall into either model of human agent theory, whether libertarian or determinist.
GodIsMyJudge (Molinist) wrote: Determinate and indeterminate seem like mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Are you suggesting there is some third category we don't know about or perhaps this is a logical paradox?
(source)
God's Will not Like Man's Will:
GodIsMyJudge's question misses part of the reason for Steve's comment. God's will is not like man's will. There is an analogy, but it is not a correspondence. God's will (his secret will - his decree of Providence) is not something time-bound. It is not something that begins from existing circumstances and produces a choice that is responsive to the circumstances in which it finds itself. It itself determines all circumstances. The decrees of God are his eternal purposes according to the counsel of his will, whereby - for his own glory - he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.
The will's decision itself (that is to say, the decree of God) is not something that comes to pass. It is an eternal purpose of God. There was never a time when it was not.
Sometimes, for analytical purposes, we treat it as though we viewed it as active, but it is not. There is no time before God's will chooses what it chose - it is an eternal decree.
Relation to Knowledge of God:
This issue has a bearing on the discussion of the knowledge of God. What GodIsMyJudge seems to have overlooked is that in both the Molinist and Calvinist understanding, God's decrees are eternal - they do not come to be. The order that we discuss is simply a logical order - not a temporal order.
Thus, the Calvinist logical order is as follows:
1) Natural Knowledge
2) Decree
3) Free Knowledge
Whereas the Molinist logical order is as follows:
1) Natural Knowledge
2) Partial Decree
3) Middle Knowledge
4) Rest of Decree
5) Free Knowledge
Comparison to Human Will:
But both Molinists and Calvinists agree that this is simply a logical not a temporal order.
In contrast, human wills (in both systems) operate with temporal order:
1) Nature
2) Circumstance
3) Decree
That is an order that is both logical and temporal. First, there is our nature. This is something that is a given. Next, we and our nature encounter a specific circumstance. Sometimes that circumstance is largely of our making, other times we had nothing to do with the circumstance. Finally, in the circumstance, we make a choice.
Observation about Molinism:
Oddly enough, although Molinism advocates "Libertarian" free will (as opposed to simple, Calvinistic free will), Molinism essentially makes man's decree a product of his nature and his circumstance, such that if the same nature is placed in the same circumstance man's decree will be the same.
Functionally, that sounds quite deterministic. The Molinist insists that the choices are free in a "libertarian" and "indeterminate" sense, but it really isn't apparent how that is possible or even credible. In the Molinist regime, it really looks like man's choices are essentially the product of his circumstances.
Conclusion
I don't want to get too sidetracked by pointing out the apparent inconsistency of Molinism. I understand (I think) the rationale behind GodIsMyJudge's question: he'd like to have Steve say that God has libertarian free will, to open the door to the idea that man could also have libertarian free will. The problem, however, is that while God and man both have wills - they operate in very different ways. In fact, even saying "operate" is a word that is only analogous when speaking of God's will.
No, God is the only uncaused cause. He is the only self-existent being, and his choices are eternal - they did not come into being indeterminately or determinately - they simply did not come into being, but always were. Therein lies the fallacy in, under, or behind the question posed by GodIsMyJudge.
-TurretinFan
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 15
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
2 Corinthians 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
2 Corinthians 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Augustine on 1 John 2:2 and "Whole World"
The fact that Augustine taught limited atonement is something that we occasionally hear disputed. Thus, from time to time, it is helpful to see what Augustine said about one of the key verses in that discussion, 1 John 2:2. Here are two places (the only two that have come to my attention) where Augustine address that verse:
In like manner it is said, on the one hand, "the whole world lies in wickedness," [1 John 5:19] because of the tares which are throughout the whole world; and, on the other hand, Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," [1 John 2:2] because of the wheat which is throughout the whole world.
- Augustine, Letter 93 to Vincentius (for more see Ancient Voices)
Therefore it is no marvel that he here goes on and shuts the mouths of them that divide the Church of God. For he that has said, "We have Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins:" having an eye to those who would divide themselves, and would say, "Lo, here is Christ, lo, there;" and would show Him in a part who bought the whole and possesses the whole, he immediately goes on to say, "Not our sins only, but also the sins of the whole world." What is this, brethren? Certainly "we have found it in the fields of the woods," we have found the Church in all nations. Behold, Christ "is the propitiation for our sins; not ours only, but also the sins of the whole world." Behold, you have the Church throughout the whole world; do not follow false justifiers who in truth are cutters off. Be in that mountain which has filled the whole earth: because "Christ is the propitiation for our sins; not only ours, but also the sins of the whole world," which He has bought with His blood.
- Augustine, Homily 1 on 1 John (for more see Ancient Voices)
As you can see, in both cases, Augustine views the reference to "whole world" to be the church throughout the world. This is very important to understanding not only the patristic interpretation of this verse, but also the semantic domain of that term "whole world" or even just "world" in the early centuries of the church. It is apparent from Augustine that he saw it as describe a vast geographical expanse rather than referring to each and every person.
Now, just because Augustine said it doesn't make it right. Augustine is not my rule of faith, Scripture is. The point I'm making here, though, is that viewing the expression "the whole world" as simply a broad geographic area and not "each and every person" is a fully reasonable understanding, and one that is consistent not only with Scripture, but with the writings of significant fathers, such as Augustine.
-TurretinFan
In like manner it is said, on the one hand, "the whole world lies in wickedness," [1 John 5:19] because of the tares which are throughout the whole world; and, on the other hand, Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," [1 John 2:2] because of the wheat which is throughout the whole world.
- Augustine, Letter 93 to Vincentius (for more see Ancient Voices)
Therefore it is no marvel that he here goes on and shuts the mouths of them that divide the Church of God. For he that has said, "We have Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins:" having an eye to those who would divide themselves, and would say, "Lo, here is Christ, lo, there;" and would show Him in a part who bought the whole and possesses the whole, he immediately goes on to say, "Not our sins only, but also the sins of the whole world." What is this, brethren? Certainly "we have found it in the fields of the woods," we have found the Church in all nations. Behold, Christ "is the propitiation for our sins; not ours only, but also the sins of the whole world." Behold, you have the Church throughout the whole world; do not follow false justifiers who in truth are cutters off. Be in that mountain which has filled the whole earth: because "Christ is the propitiation for our sins; not only ours, but also the sins of the whole world," which He has bought with His blood.
- Augustine, Homily 1 on 1 John (for more see Ancient Voices)
As you can see, in both cases, Augustine views the reference to "whole world" to be the church throughout the world. This is very important to understanding not only the patristic interpretation of this verse, but also the semantic domain of that term "whole world" or even just "world" in the early centuries of the church. It is apparent from Augustine that he saw it as describe a vast geographical expanse rather than referring to each and every person.
Now, just because Augustine said it doesn't make it right. Augustine is not my rule of faith, Scripture is. The point I'm making here, though, is that viewing the expression "the whole world" as simply a broad geographic area and not "each and every person" is a fully reasonable understanding, and one that is consistent not only with Scripture, but with the writings of significant fathers, such as Augustine.
-TurretinFan
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 14
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Response to Prophecy Channel
The video below is a response to Prophecy Channel's (PC's) response to Dr. James White. There three main sections to the video, and consequently three main sections to the response:
1. Does Dr. White think only Calvinists are Christians?
No. Dr. White acknowledges that there are non-Calvinist Christians. On the other hand, Dr. White recognizes that not everyone who calls himself a Christian actually is one.
2. Does Calvinism make God the Author of Sin?
Not by the definition of that term found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But PC has his own definition of "author of sin." Since the term isn't a Biblical term, I'd rather not get stuck on labels. I know "author of sin" has a nasty ring to it, but what's wrong with saying that God is the "author of sin" in some remote sense of ordaining that sin will transpire. Why should that be problematic beyond being susceptible of an ugly label?
2. What about three passages in Jeremiah?
PC raises three passages in Jeremiah that say that some particular sin was not what God commanded or decreed, nor did it enter into God's mind. Three such passages are:
Jeremiah 7:30-31
For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
Jeremiah 19:5-6
They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.
Jeremiah 32:34-35
But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
PC's problem in analyzing these passages is this: he has overlooked the difference between the Revealed Will (what one should do) and the Secret Will (what one will do). These passages are talking about God's decrees relative to the revealed will: his commandments, not his decrees of Providence.
Furthermore, PC has a problem ahead of him. If he insists that God cannot hold men responsible for things that God has foreordained, he's going to run into a problem:
Acts 2:23-24
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
John 19:10-11
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
God foreordained that the Jews would deliver up Jesus to Pilate and yet the Jews had not just sin, but a greater sin than Pilate's sin in executing Christ unjustly. That's a greater sin than the rape of a child, as shocking as that might sound. So, are you going to "blame" God for the crucifixion? Or are you going to justify God although he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass?
-Turretinfan
1. Does Dr. White think only Calvinists are Christians?
No. Dr. White acknowledges that there are non-Calvinist Christians. On the other hand, Dr. White recognizes that not everyone who calls himself a Christian actually is one.
2. Does Calvinism make God the Author of Sin?
Not by the definition of that term found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But PC has his own definition of "author of sin." Since the term isn't a Biblical term, I'd rather not get stuck on labels. I know "author of sin" has a nasty ring to it, but what's wrong with saying that God is the "author of sin" in some remote sense of ordaining that sin will transpire. Why should that be problematic beyond being susceptible of an ugly label?
2. What about three passages in Jeremiah?
PC raises three passages in Jeremiah that say that some particular sin was not what God commanded or decreed, nor did it enter into God's mind. Three such passages are:
Jeremiah 7:30-31
For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
Jeremiah 19:5-6
They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.
Jeremiah 32:34-35
But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
PC's problem in analyzing these passages is this: he has overlooked the difference between the Revealed Will (what one should do) and the Secret Will (what one will do). These passages are talking about God's decrees relative to the revealed will: his commandments, not his decrees of Providence.
Furthermore, PC has a problem ahead of him. If he insists that God cannot hold men responsible for things that God has foreordained, he's going to run into a problem:
Acts 2:23-24
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
John 19:10-11
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
God foreordained that the Jews would deliver up Jesus to Pilate and yet the Jews had not just sin, but a greater sin than Pilate's sin in executing Christ unjustly. That's a greater sin than the rape of a child, as shocking as that might sound. So, are you going to "blame" God for the crucifixion? Or are you going to justify God although he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass?
-Turretinfan
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 13
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Ephesians 5:1-5
1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Ephesians 5:1-5
1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Bigotry and Bellisario
I noticed that Mr. Bellisario has posted against something Dr. White mentioned in passing in a Sunday School lesson. Mr. Bellisario starts his post thus: "James White at Alpha and Omega has once again proven why he is an anti-Catholic bigot." However, when it comes to his critique of what Dr. White said, Mr. Bellisario says: "First of all I would love to know where James White got his information that tells us large amounts of the guards were “practicing” Catholics."
One has to chuckle. Bellisario has no idea where Dr. White got his information, but Dr. White is a "bigot" (in Mr. Bellisario's mind) simply for holding to the opinion that it has been rightly said that a large portion of the guards at Buchenwald and Auschewitz were practicing Catholics. That opinion would seem to be justified strictly on the statistical fact of Germany's population being about 1/3 Roman Catholic and the German practice of conscription for military service.
Oh, and Bellisario doesn't stop there. His second point is equally amusing: "Secondly, what does he consider the definition of “practicing Catholics” to be?" Bellisario isn't sure what Dr. White means by "practicing Catholics" but he's sure Dr. White is just being a bigot.
Amazing! Does Bellisario even know the definition of a bigot?
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, defines it this way:
That describes Mr. Bellisario, not Dr. White, to the "t." Bellisario is intolerant of opinions that conflict with his own and is obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church. He is prejudiced against anything remotely negative that is said about his church, and will call others "bigots" for holding to their opinions, even before any facts are brought to bear on the subject.
Bigotry indeed, but not from Dr. White. Dr. White simply mentioned an historical fact in passing during a Sunday-school lesson on Matthew 23:37. Ironically, the matter was tangentially related to pointing out that there are some unreasonbly intolerant folks out there who will scream "bigot" (or worse) when you mention that the Jews killed Jesus and even called down his blood on them and their children. Apparently, there are equally bigoted Romanists who will shout "bigot" when you dare to suggest that Roman Catholics were prison guards. Ah, the irony. Nevertheless, we are glad to see that Mr. Bellisario is paying close attention to Dr. White's sunday-school lessons, and we hope that he will get past his prejudice and focus on the main points of that lesson, rather than a single sentence spoken in passing.
-TurretinFan
*** Update ***
There are a number of radical Romanists upset by a passing remark that Dr. White made about the participation of some practicing Roman Catholics in the atrocities of the Holocaust. They demand an apology.
I wonder if they are familiar with the following facts:
Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic and was confirmed on May 22, 1904, at Linz Cathedral. The Roman Catholic church never formally excommunicated Hitler.
On July 20, 1933, the Roman Catholic Church represented by Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed the Reichskonkordat (Concordat). This document has, as its first article:
Others have noted that Goebbels and Himmler were also from Roman Catholic families and were apparently confirmed Roman Catholics. Goebbels was even married in the Roman Catholic church. None of them were formally excommunicated.
Were there Roman Catholic priests imprisoned etc. by the Nazis? Absolutely! Most of those were imprisoned at Dachau, where they were permitted to set up a chapel for the practice of their religion within Barracks 26. And, in the fall of November 1945, former SS men from the camp built a Roman Catholic Church and it was subsequently used by them for worship under the American regime that transformed the camp into an internment camp for Nazis.
(see, for example, Legacies of Dachau, by Harold Marcuse)
Was there anti-Vatican sentiment among Nazi heirarchs like Goebbels and Himmler? Of course. But were the Roman Catholics who, like the rest of the population, got involved in the bad deeds of the Germans? I think one would have to be very naive to believe otherwise. No one is suggesting (well - no one in this conversation) that only practicing Roman Catholics were involved or even that practicing Roman Catholics were more involved than Protestants. It is a little interesting that non-practicing Roman Catholics were the leaders of the Nazi organization, but for some reason it seems to trigger a knee-jerk reaction from folks like Bellisario when someone suggests in passing that practicing Roman Catholics were somehow involved.
One has to chuckle. Bellisario has no idea where Dr. White got his information, but Dr. White is a "bigot" (in Mr. Bellisario's mind) simply for holding to the opinion that it has been rightly said that a large portion of the guards at Buchenwald and Auschewitz were practicing Catholics. That opinion would seem to be justified strictly on the statistical fact of Germany's population being about 1/3 Roman Catholic and the German practice of conscription for military service.
Oh, and Bellisario doesn't stop there. His second point is equally amusing: "Secondly, what does he consider the definition of “practicing Catholics” to be?" Bellisario isn't sure what Dr. White means by "practicing Catholics" but he's sure Dr. White is just being a bigot.
Amazing! Does Bellisario even know the definition of a bigot?
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, defines it this way:
1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.this term has evolved a bit over the years, but the sense was about the same in 1913, when Webster's gave (after an obsolete sense) this definition:
2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
That describes Mr. Bellisario, not Dr. White, to the "t." Bellisario is intolerant of opinions that conflict with his own and is obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church. He is prejudiced against anything remotely negative that is said about his church, and will call others "bigots" for holding to their opinions, even before any facts are brought to bear on the subject.
Bigotry indeed, but not from Dr. White. Dr. White simply mentioned an historical fact in passing during a Sunday-school lesson on Matthew 23:37. Ironically, the matter was tangentially related to pointing out that there are some unreasonbly intolerant folks out there who will scream "bigot" (or worse) when you mention that the Jews killed Jesus and even called down his blood on them and their children. Apparently, there are equally bigoted Romanists who will shout "bigot" when you dare to suggest that Roman Catholics were prison guards. Ah, the irony. Nevertheless, we are glad to see that Mr. Bellisario is paying close attention to Dr. White's sunday-school lessons, and we hope that he will get past his prejudice and focus on the main points of that lesson, rather than a single sentence spoken in passing.
-TurretinFan
*** Update ***
There are a number of radical Romanists upset by a passing remark that Dr. White made about the participation of some practicing Roman Catholics in the atrocities of the Holocaust. They demand an apology.
I wonder if they are familiar with the following facts:
Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic and was confirmed on May 22, 1904, at Linz Cathedral. The Roman Catholic church never formally excommunicated Hitler.
On July 20, 1933, the Roman Catholic Church represented by Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed the Reichskonkordat (Concordat). This document has, as its first article:
The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public practice of the Catholic religion.(source)
It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the limit of those laws which are applicable to all, to manage and regulate her own affairs independently, and, within the framework of her own competence, to publish laws and ordinances binding on her members.
Others have noted that Goebbels and Himmler were also from Roman Catholic families and were apparently confirmed Roman Catholics. Goebbels was even married in the Roman Catholic church. None of them were formally excommunicated.
Were there Roman Catholic priests imprisoned etc. by the Nazis? Absolutely! Most of those were imprisoned at Dachau, where they were permitted to set up a chapel for the practice of their religion within Barracks 26. And, in the fall of November 1945, former SS men from the camp built a Roman Catholic Church and it was subsequently used by them for worship under the American regime that transformed the camp into an internment camp for Nazis.
(see, for example, Legacies of Dachau, by Harold Marcuse)
Was there anti-Vatican sentiment among Nazi heirarchs like Goebbels and Himmler? Of course. But were the Roman Catholics who, like the rest of the population, got involved in the bad deeds of the Germans? I think one would have to be very naive to believe otherwise. No one is suggesting (well - no one in this conversation) that only practicing Roman Catholics were involved or even that practicing Roman Catholics were more involved than Protestants. It is a little interesting that non-practicing Roman Catholics were the leaders of the Nazi organization, but for some reason it seems to trigger a knee-jerk reaction from folks like Bellisario when someone suggests in passing that practicing Roman Catholics were somehow involved.
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 12
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Colossians 3:5-7
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
Colossians 3:5-7
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
Monday, June 15, 2009
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 11
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
1 Thessalonians 4:2-8
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
1 Thessalonians 4:2-8
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
June - Sexual Depravity "Pride Month" - Part 10
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
