Chosen But Free Reviews - Part 4

I think this will be the last of the parts of my responses to reviews of "Chosen But Free." Thus, I think I have now completed my series of responses (part 1, part 2, part 3) to reviews of Chosen But Free, with a particular emphasis on how I think the students who prepared these reviews might benefit from the rebuttal provided in Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom." The numbering of the reviews picks up from the previous post.

31. THEO 202-003

This review seems to buy into the idea that Geisler has provided a "balanced" view of sovereignty and free will. As I have said many other times, I think the reviewer would be in a position to give a more balanced judgment, if he had also read Dr. White's rebuttal in "The Potter's Freedom."

32. Onomonopia

This review expresses a similar sentiment to many of the other reviews. By way of providing an example, here's how this review put it:

Ultimately, Geislers book is a great overview and relation of two opposing views that are normally seen to only be contradictory. He relates these views not just by his own knowledge but by pulling examples straight from the scripture itself.

As I have said many times, Geisler's book isn't balanced: it's one sided. Those who read it should really take the next step and read the other side.

33. Love God With All of Your Heart

This review had one surprising comment that I thought was worth addressing separately. The reviewer wrote:

I do agree with that. God does have a plan and a purpose for our life. I do agree that nothing that we do can change God mind. We not get there the way that is way that God wants us to get there. But one day we will get to the place that God wants us to be. It just may take longer.

This sounds curiously fatalistic. We can't change our destiny, but we can delay it. That's neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian view, technically speaking. We Calvinists don't hold that God simply has an end in mind for us that will somehow come to pass. We also believe that "all things work together for good" to those who are the called according to God's purposes.

34. My testimony

This review seems to reflect that the reviewer caught on to the fact that Geisler is basically promoting a version of Arminianism (the version that teaches "eternal security"). The reviewer also sets forth an argument against limited atonement. I'll respond to that argument:

1 peter 3:18 says For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit”. In Titus 2:11 it says “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men”. Lastly, in 2 Corinthians 5:15 it states “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf”. All these verses have the word ALL in them so I don’t really know how people can argue that God died for only the chosen when the verses say otherwise.

That emphasis is in the original review. A few responses:

Regarding 1 Peter 3:18, the "once for all" is actually just an idiom that means "once for all time." The KJV puts it this way:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

You will notice that "all" doesn't even appear in that translation. The point of the verse is just that Jesus suffered one time. This contrasts with often-repeated Old Testament sacrifices and the Roman Catholic mass that is repeated daily.

Regarding Titus 2:11, the "to all" there should be carefully considered. Recall that the verse as a whole is this (KJV):

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Notice that "to all men" refers to the fact that saving grace of God has appeared to all men. It doesn't mean literally ever last person, but to the fact that this is not limited to the Jews. The proclamation of the gospel is for everyone, even if it has not yet appeared to everyone. The "to all men" doesn't refer to "brings salvation." If it did, we would be universalists.

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:15, the verse does say "all," but all of whom? All of the people in the world? Look at the context to find out (KJV):

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

As you can see from the context, the "all" refers to "us." One died for all of us.

35. honest to goodness thoughts

This review comments on the issue of free will and its relation to evil. The review argues thus:

Some, such as Jonathon Edwards might argue that sin comes from nature but Adam contradicts that because he fell in a perfect world and was created good in nature. (Geisler,39-40)

I found that interesting, because I heartily commend Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will" to everyone's reading. I am surprised to hear that the reviewer thinks that a world with a tempting serpent and a wife who has already given in to the temptation is a "perfect world," but even beyond that: doesn't the reviewer think that there will be free will and an absence of sin in heaven? The problem here is really that Edwards' position hasn't been accurately portrayed. While our fallen human nature is one reason we sin, Adam had an innocent but fallible nature. He was able to make an error and he did. He judged it better to follow his wife and the serpent than to follow God.

36. Lauren's blog

This review reflected a belief that Geisler had found a middle path between two extreme views. That's the impression that the book gives. But that impression is easily remedied by reading Dr. James White's response in "The Potter's Freedom."

37. Spit it Out

This review expresses the seemingly common (in the class) perception that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is a waste of time that would be better spent evangelizing. Evangelism is important. On the other hand, theology matters. If we are not really ready to understand free will, God's sovereignty, and their interplay, we may face difficulty when we are asked those kinds of questions by the atheists and others we run into.

38. Nursing Student on a Mission

This review raises one of Geisler's arguments against Calvinism based on the nature of Love. As expressed by the reviewer:

I agree with what Geisler says on page 140 of his book. He basically argues that love is not and cannot be irresistible. He states “God is love, and true love never forces itself on anyone, either externally or internally. Forced love is a contradiction in terms” (Geisler, 140).

Isn't the answer a little obvious? Hell is coercion. There is a "turn or burn" aspect to the gospel call. If you don't love God, you will burn in Hell forever. That should be enough to demonstrate that Geisler's analogy is fundamentally flawed. What could be a worse threat than Hell? After all, we are not to fear those who can kill the body, but Him who can place both body and soul in Hell.

39. Joey Yapp

This review, one of the few that appears to be placed on a "real" blog (although some of the other folks have a "real" blog in addition to the class blog), seems to reflect an impression that the book was good and balanced. I hope that the reviewer will take the time to review Dr. White's response in "The Potter's Freedom."

40. Theology 202: Dr. Caner

This review presented two points that I'd like to address briefly:

God came to this world to save the entire world, all sinners, not just a select few that he had chosen.

There are plenty of verses that indicate the latter. But consider the implications of the former position. If God came to save each and every person, has God mostly failed? Or is God free to save whom God wants to save? That's one of the key points of "The Potter's Freedom." It explains God's freedom to save.

One thing that I was a little disappointed with in this book was the lack of in depth scripture usage. Geisler uses tons of scripture references all throughout the entire book, but I feel like they barely scratch the surface of each topic. I mean, any person can flood a book with scripture references to make it sound like they apply to the topic at hand, but it doesn’t always mean that it proves the point that you are trying to argue. I loved the scripture he used, but I feel like he could have gone a little bit deeper with his usages.

Here's where I think the reviewer might be especially thankful for "The Potter's Freedom." It goes in-depth in its exegesis of the Scripture text. In that regard, it stands in contrast to "Chosen But Free."

41. Katie's blog

This review is similar to many of the others in terms of buying into the idea that Geisler is presenting a balanced position. That idea is undermined if one reads the rebuttal to Geisler's work, "The Potter's Freedom."

There is one comment from this review that I feel I should address:

I believe that Christ died for ALL, and ALL have the same opportunity to receive God’s gift. I believe that Christ desires for ALL to go to Heaven.

I realize that the belief that Christ died for everyone is quite popular, even though when Christ described his own sacrifice he did not say "which is shed for all" but "which is shed for many." Nevertheless, even if you will not accept that Christ died for many (rather than all) at least you must acknowledge that not all have the same opportunity. Some are born into Christian families. They grow up in a church, being brought to Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and so on. They have a lot of opportunity. Other children are born in communist China. Their opportunities are more limited. And the people of this century have more opportunities to hear the gospel than those of previous centuries. Think about the American Indians before the Europeans showed up, for example. Think about all the nations outside of Israel before Christ. These people do not all have the same opportunity, even though all have the same way of salvation: repentance and faith in Christ.

42. LU THEO 202-003 (subtitle for blog: My blog about what Dr. Caner tells me to blog about for THEO 202-003)

This review similarly accepted Geisler's claim to be taking a middle position. The review contained an interesting argument from Jonah:

God is in control but I don't think He forces people to do things. He tells us what He wants, but I've never thought He would force anyone to do it. Just look at the life of Jonah. God told Jonah that He wanted him to go to the Ninevites, but He did not force him to go. Jonah ran the other way and wound up in the belly of a big fish. Jonah had a choice to go or to run the opposite direction. Jonah then saw that God knew what He was talking about and ran to Nineveh after he was vomited out of the fish.

If I put a gun to your head, I'm "forcing" you to do what I say. God didn't put a gun to Jonah's head, but he did place Jonah in a position where Jonah had to be cast into the sea to avoid his death and the death of the men that were with him. Moreover, God threatened all of Nineveh with destruction. They repented and God spared them. But it is strange to say that God is not "forcing" them.

You can say that "they still have a choice," but I'm not sure what that gets you. Even if someone has a gun to your head, you still have a choice, yet at the same time you are being forced.

Moreover, God is able to change a person's heart. That's not at all like pointing a gun at someone, yet I suppose it would be considered "forcing" the person, according to the reviewer. What's wrong with that kind of "forcing" though?

43. mattlillis

This review was interesting for a variety of reasons. I will respond to it paragraph by paragraph:

Geisler’s discussion on whether faith is a gift only to the elect in his book, Chosen But Free, was a most intriguing section, which I found myself very much engaged. On page 237 Geisler states, “Nowhere does the Bible teach that saving faith is a special gift of God only to a select few,” and proceeds to give numerous versus such as John 11:40. Geisler makes another very pungent statement a littler further on page 240 where he is tackling the Arminian and Calvanist view of faith saying, “God is pleased with our faith, yet this is not because it adds to the work of Christ, which alone satisfies God’s justice. On the contrary, God is pleased with our faith because we know we cannot do anything to add to the work of Christ and must wholly and completely trust in Him and Him alone for our salvation.” These two extremely profound revisions of scripture seem to resonate between Calvin and Arminius’ arguments in a way that makes total sense and only validates what I have already come to know and experience about God. I totally agree with Geisler’s main argument here that we play no role in adding to the salvation that Christ offers, this being in regards to having a “faith.” His choice of words and just overall clarity of message simplified such a complex and ingenious conclusion, and created one of those take away messages that great minds seem to come up with.

Regarding the issue of saving faith being a gift of God for a select few:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Indeed, eternal life itself is the gift of God:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

As for it being "for a select few," not everyone has saving faith. If they did, all would be saved. They would all have eternal life.

Geisler's point about God being pleased with our faith is not necessarily wrong in itself (I'm sure the reviewer mean "poignant" not "pungent"), but it misses the point. It's good that Geisler doesn't try to argue that faith is meritorious. Nevertheless, Geisler's argument about faith pleasing God seems almost to treat faith as though it were a work, rather than as it being the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

Next:

Another example that Geisler gives from scripture that seems to resonate on the same frequency with his other arguments is on page 237, “Finally, the Bible describes faith as ours. It speaks of ‘your faith’, ‘his faith’, and ‘their faith’, but never of ‘God’s faith’ as a condition for receiving the gift of salvation.” This argument, although good, is not as good as the other two I previous quoted, I disagree with what he is trying to do here because he is describing what the Bible doesn’t say, over what it does say, and this can be a slippery slope into false teaching.

The faith is ours - but isn't that true of all gifts we are given? Is eternal life not ours, just because it is a gift of God? God is not the one who believes, we are. Nevertheless, faith - like life itself - is a gift of God. Surely Geisler would be willing to admit that life is a gift of God, yet God is not the one living our life.

Finally:

Norman Geisler’s overall methodology of attacking this monumental debate of free will that has been raging for centuries was overall very well communicated and easy to follow, which made the book enjoyable to read. I was not getting lost in cross references and incoherent rhetoric. One concern that turned out not to be a problem with Geisler that I had before starting the book, was I did not want to read just a conglomeration of Straw Man arguments and misguided scripture references. But Norman Geisler seems to take great caution throughout the entire book to avoid such arguments and quote scripture in a historical and contextual way that seem to validate most if not all of his conclusions. The appendices in this book though were not constructed well and I thought they should have been included in the main text, because that is where I found most of the “meat” of the text and his arguments.

I think the reviewer would really enjoy the meat contained throughout "The Potter's Freedom." The reviewer may also be surprised to discover that some of the positions that Geisler presented may be criticized as being straw men. That's part of the value in reading a rebuttal: it casts further light on the quality of the original work.

44. Chosen But Free

This review is the only post on this particular blog. I have no idea of whether the author of the blog created a new blog for each of the blogging assignments, or only recently joined the class, or what. This review contained some similar comments to those already addressed above, as well as one comment that I'll address now:

Norman Geisler states, free choice in this life means, “the ability to do otherwise” (21).

This is interesting. Does that mean that God does not have free choice, because God is unable to sin? Does that mean that in the next life, we will not have free choice - or that the very definition of free choice will change? These questions seem to undermine Geisler's point.

On top of that, "the ability to do otherwise" is an ability that is never, ever used. It seemingly exists simply to make people feel better. It's not just unused, it's unprovable. One cannot prove that one had or has the ability to do otherwise than what one does.

45. Justine's Blog

This review focuses on chapter 4 of Geisler's book. The review makes one of the robot arguments that we are used to hearing:

I believe that we need to stop putting the blame on God and taking responsibility of own actions. I believe we have a free will to do what we want and I do not think that we are God’s robots just walking around on earth doing exactly what he tells us to do. If that were the case, we would live in a perfect world because God would not tell us to sin and do wrong. God loves us and wants us to always do right but He knows that we are not perfect and that we are going to fall short sometimes. We have a merciful, forgiving Savior who dies for our wicked sins and we need to be grateful that He has done for us. Also, if we did not have a free will then we would all be followers of Chirst and everyone would be on their way to heaven. But instead, we have people who love God with all their heart, people who are backslidden, people who don’t care about religion and even people who hate God. How can somebody say that they do not have a free will, after seeing the different levels of faith that there are? If we were all God’s ‘robots’ then we would all be on fire for God but that is unfortunately not the case.

The problem with the argument is the underlying the assumption that if God ran the show, there would be no sin. We are not robots, of course. No Calvinist says we are robots. Nevertheless, if one will concede that God is omniscient (he knows everything), omnipotent (he has all power), and interested (he cares what happens), then it follows that everything that happens is - in some sense - approved by God. God could (at least) prevent anything bad from occurring, and yet God does not.

God's sovereignty, then, is higher than this reviewer gives God credit for. I would encourage this reviewer to consider reading James White's "The Potter's Freedom" to get a better picture of the sovereignty of God.

46. Theo 202

This review indicated that "one of my favorite parts" was the way that Geisler used Scripture. Considering the much greater Scriptural depth of "The Potter's Freedom," I believe that this reviewer might really benefit from Dr. James White's rebuttal to Geisler's book. "The Potter's Freedom" also rebuts Geisler's insinuation that Calvinists and Calvin had divergent viewpoints. Nevertheless, the five points (as such) are really more associated with the Synod of Dordt than they are with Calvin himself.

47. dagment

This review is another of the reviews that concludes that Geisler provides a balanced position between Calvinism and Arminianism. In "The Potter's Freedom," Dr. James White explains how Geisler has essentially just proposed an Arminian position (with respect to most points), while demonstrating from the Scripture why the Calvinist position should be accepted by those who accept the authority of Scripture.

48. alexanapier

This review can probably be well summarized by one of the lines from the review: "I enjoyed Geisler’s ability to use logic and scripture to defend the balance between free will and God’s sovereignty. " While I can understand that one might get that impression from reading Geisler's book alone, one really will get a more balanced perspective by reading the rebuttal to the book, namely Dr. James White's "The Potter's Freedom."

49. Theology II

This review presented a few interesting points drawn from Geisler. I will respond to each:

Geisler makes a distinct difference though when he states “According to this view (Calvinism), God’s predetermination is done in spite of His foreknowledge of human free acts. God operates with such unapproachable sovereignty that His choices are made with total disregard for the choices of mortal men.” Here it is supposing that God knows what free choices we will make and plan accordingly.

This simply is not an accurate view of Calvinism. According to the Scriptures, God sovereignly ordains all things including men's free choices. God's decrees, therefore, are not "in spite of" man's free choices. Instead, God's decrees frame and give purpose to man's free choices. Man's free choices have a purpose in God's plan.

The view that God knows what man will do and plans accordingly makes God reactive. It places man's free will above that of God, since God is reduced to making the best of a mess.

For, as Geisler said, “If free choices were not considered at all when God made the list of the elect, then irresistible grace on the unwilling follows; that is, man would have no say in his own salvation. Accordingly, the fact that all men do not choose to love, worship, and serve God will make no difference whatsoever to God.” If it were not for this simple choice, then there would be no point in the creation of humans.

But Scripture says:

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Isn't that the point? Man does not have a say in his own salvation. It is all of God, it is all by grace.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The point of God's creation of men was not to leave God eternally disappointed. The point of creation was for God to glorify himself.

Romans 9:21-24
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

50. Tim's Blog

This review focused on the question of who is in charge. One interesting passage from the review is as follows:

It is an incredible, comforting, and yet scary thought to know that the God that we serve knows our every action and our every thought. Having this is mind should change our actions and our thoughts. Luke 1:37 says that “Nothing is impossible with God.” This however brings up the question: Can God make a mountain big enough for him to move? This can easily be solved by clarifying that God can do anything that doesn’t contradict itself. In other words, God cannot lie because it is against his nature. Also, God cannot make a triangle with two sides because, by definition, a triangle is a three sided figure.

Hopefully, this reviewer realizes that man's free will is not a mountain too big for God to move. With such a realization, one must realize that all things, even the free actions of human beings, are within God's sovereignty and are ordered as God wishes. Only when God is in control is God's sovereignty a comforting thought.

51. My Mind as an Open Book

This review is another review that aims to adopt Geisler's position. The review even identifies the reviewer as a "moderate Calvinist" using Geisler's categories. The review states, among other things:

I want to focus on chapter four and briefly state my opinion. Geisler’s premise was this: if God knows everything we are going to do and our free will cannot change that, then the future cannot be changed. Therefore, the conclusion is, we are not responsible for any of our actions whether good or bad. This is an extreme view of God’s sovereignty and does not take into account man’s free will.

But we cannot change the future. If we could, then we could render God's prescience of the future wrong. But God actually knows what we will do - he's not just guessing. So, that will definitely happen. If God knows we will do X, there's not the slightest chance we will not do X. We may bring about the future, but we don't "change" it.

52. Kirstin!

This review indicated an appreciation for Geisler's use of Scripture. While it is good that Geisler attempted to support his position with Scripture, Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom," demonstrated that Geisler's attempted reliance on Scripture was mistaken. This review also included an argument that I thought it made sense to address here:

Geiesler also discusses the big topic of free will. In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve a choice, proving the fact that we are given a choice, and it is up to us to choose. We as humans have the free will to do what we want. Salvation is literally given to everyone and it is our human choice to decide whether we want to accept it or not. Here on earth, we are truly free. We are truly free because we are given a choice to do what we want, and are not bound to making a decision that we don’t want to make. I like the quote on page 21, “In heaven we will be free from evil; here we are free to do evil.” We are free to choose good or evil here on earth, but once we make our choice, we are bound to it when we die. God gave us the gift of salvation, not the gift of faith (pg. 229). Faith is what we have the freedom to choose. Basically, we all have salvation, it our choice whether we want it or not.

Has the reviewer really thought about the problem of heaven? Why is it ok for humans to be free from evil in heaven, but not ok for them to be free from evil (per Geisler)? Doesn't that seem to be simply a double standard? Is there no free will in heaven? Surely no one would assert that. Therefore, free will isn't really a sufficient answer to why we sin here.

Second, salvation is not given to everyone - it is offered to everyone. It's important to distinguish between those two things. The gospel offer is universal - but the gift of salvation is given to those who believe.

Moreover, faith itself is a gift. After all the Scripture tell us:

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?

A consistent Arminian would have to answer the question with "faith." But Paul's point is to make a rhetorical question: God is the one who makes one person to differ from another. We have nothing - not even faith - that we did not receive from God. Therefore, we cannot glory even in our faith.

Does the Bible Guarantee Camping's Prediction?

Harold Camping has widely asserted that "the Bible guarantees" his prediction regarding the end times. This invites us to us examine his Biblical claims. One large chunk of the basis for Harold Camping's claims with respect to May 21, 2011, is that 2011 is allegedly 7000 years from the flood. Camping's date for the flood is unique and springs from work that he published as "Adam When?" in 1974 (I understand that the book may have undergone some revisions or editions since then, and in the following discussion I am referring to the current version available at his website.)

Adam When? purports to be a book that seeks to uphold the integrity of the Bible, and particularly the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. These are noble and right aims. The book quickly goes astray, however.

At page 36, Camping begins a section entitled "Inspired Verbs." While the verbs of the Bible are inspired, Camping treats them as though they represent a code. In short, Camping says that in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, whenever the text describes A begetting B and living a set number of years, this should be interpreted as A being just an ancestor of B, with B being born the year of A's death.

There's no Biblical proof for this approach. In other words, Camping cannot point to any passage where the Bible explains that this way of speaking is being used. This is a key point: nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that when it says "A lived so and so years and begat B and lived so and so more years after he begat B and he died," that B was actually born not after the first so and so years, but rather at the very end of A's life. This particular patriarchal generation idea is just something Camping dreamed up.

Moreover, Camping is forced to admit that in certain cases it is clear that this terminology is used of direct father-son relationships. Camping actually provides an exception for those cases in the genealogies where the text says that the father "called [his son's] name [name of the son]."

But this exception is as arbitrary as the rule. Camping does not provide a Scriptural basis for why the expression "called his name" should be a sign of direct father-son relationship that holds water. After all, the term is frequently used to refer to a mother naming her son, or even to neighbors of the grandmother naming a child:

Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

And, of course, a very old man could name his grandchild born in the year of his death just as easily as neighbors could name their friend's grandchild. So, again, the idea that "called his name" is a special sign of direct father-son relationship is yet another thing that Camping just dreamed up.

What is truly bizarre is that begetting is something that only a father actually does, whereas calling a child's name is something that the mother or even the neighbors of the grandmother can do.

Camping's only answer to this objection is to point to Matthew 1:8 and to allege that Matthew declares that Joram begat Uzziah, although there is not an actual father-son relationship between the two. According to Camping: "Ahazial, Joash, and Amaziah should come between Joram and Uzziah."

Various explanations have been given as to why there are those three apparently missing generations in the Matthew genealogy. What is key about the Matthew genealogy, however, is that it does not purport to provide us with a chronology (i.e. dates). There are no ages or years of life mentioned. Instead, it is providing a lineage, much the way the Ezra 7 lineage does (the Ezra 7 lineage apparently omits 6 generations).

We could speculate about the apparent missing generations (are there really missing generations? have they been omitted because of a curse placed against Ahab? or does Ozias not correspond to Uzziah, but rather to a brother of Ahazial?), but such speculation isn't really necessary.

Why isn't such speculation necessary? Matthew 1's genealogy does not follow the patriarchal generation model that Camping has described. In Matthew 1's genealogy the only "called his name" is - you guessed it - Joseph calling Jesus' name in Matthew 1:25. It would be blasphemous to assert that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

Thus, we see the arbitrary nature of Camping's pick-and-choose hermeneutic. Camping picks the apparently missing generations of Matthew 1:8 to establish a mere ancestry interpretation of the term "beget," while ignoring the "called his name" in the same genealogy, where such usage undermines Camping's theory.

In summary:

1) Camping simply dreamed up his unique patriarchal generations theory. The Bible does not tell us that, for example, the following passage should be understood as saying that Jared was born in the year that Mahalaleel died:

Genesis 5:15-17
And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: and Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

2) Camping simply dreamed up the "called his name" exception. The Scriptures do not tell us that "called his name" is a special clue that there is direct father-son relationship between the person who called the name of the other person. Indeed, many times it is a woman who calls the name of the child (Genesis 4:25, Genesis 19:37, 1 Chronicles 4:9, 1 Chronicles 7:18) and sometimes it is even the neighbors of the grandmother, as we saw in the case of Obed.

3) Camping appeals selectively to irrelevant texts to make his case. As we noted above, Matthew's genealogy does not provide years, only lineage. Thus, Matthew's genealogy is not especially relevant to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. Moreover, if Matthew's genealogy is relevant, Camping ought also to take into account the fact that "called his name" in Matthew 1:25 refers to Joseph naming Jesus, though Joseph was only the adoptive father of Jesus, much like Pharaoh's daughter was only the adoptive mother of Moses where she "called his name" in Exodus 2:10.

So, to answer the title question of this post, no - the Bible does not guarantee Camping's prediction. Camping's prediction is something that Camping dreamed up and attempted to impose on the Bible. Even if a very generous person would say that the Bible does not unequivocally deny Camping's imposed reading, certainly Camping's claim that "The Bible Guarantees It" falls short.

-TurretinFan

Camping Rained Out by Flood

One of the key items in Harold Camping's interpretation that leads him to conclude that 2011 is the last year is that the flood was in 4990 B.C. and that A.D. 2011 is "exactly" 7000 years later. That 7000 years number is important to Camping, because at one point God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" (Genesis 7:4). Moreover, elsewhere Camping has noted that with the Lord one days is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as a day. Thus, Camping concludes that it is 7000 years from Noah's Flood until Judgment Day.

First, this is completely arbitrary. There's nothing about Genesis 7:4 that would lead someone to conclude that does not refer simply to the seven literal days that were fulfilled in the days of Noah. The reference to the earth being destroyed there is a reference to the world being destroyed by a flood, and we have been promised that a global flood will never again destroy the earth (see Genesis 9:13), of which the rainbow is a sign of the covenant.

The arbitrariness of the interpretation can be seen from the full context of the verse itself: "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)

There is no room for 40,000 years in Camping's chronology, so this part of the verse is conveniently ignored. Perhaps a justification is given that when it says "days ... and ... nights" it is not referring to thousands of years - but such an explanation doesn't come from the Bible.

There's another problem, though. The Bible doesn't date the flood to 4990 B.C. Of course, the Bible doesn't give year numbers, the Bible gives genealogies. Those genealogies can be used, to some extent, to reconstruct the history of the Old Testament era.

If one uses those genealogies, however, one will not arrive at 4990 B.C., one will arrive with a number like 2349 B.C., the number that Archbishop Ussher calculated, or 2957 B.C. - the number similarly calculated from the Septuagint translation (incidentally, the former calculation places Creation at 4004 B.C., while the latter places it around 5200 B.C.).

The 4990 B.C. date for the flood is actually something that Camping came up with around 1970 or so, and published in "Adam When?" in 1974. There is an updated version available on Camping's website now. Lord Willing, we will discuss "Adam When?" some more in a future post.

What suffices for this post is to point out that if Camping is right about the flood being 7000 years before the end of the world, then we have well over a 1000 years to go.

-TurretinFan

Counting Down with Camping ...

In a previous blog post, I commented on the fact that Camping has demonstrably miscounted the number of days between April 1, 33, and May 21, 2011. The number of days 722,501, not 722,500. How did he make this mistake?

Here's Camping's calculation paragraphs from his "Another Infallible Proof":

Because of the importance and wonder of this proof we will take time to develop it. First we must learn that we can develop with perfect precision the number of days from one date to another. To obtain the precise number of days from a moment in one year to the same moment in any other year we must realize that astronomers have long ago discovered that there are 365.2422 days in a complete year. That is why in our modern calendar there are 365 days in each of three consecutive years. However, every fourth year has 366 days. This is done by adding an extra day in February of that year. Thus the average year for the four years becomes 365.25 days. But .25 is greater than .2422, so every 128 years a day is dropped from the calendar to maintain accuracy.

Thus all we have to do is multiply the number of years separating two events by the number 365.2422 to know the exact number of days between them. So from April 1, 33 A.D. to April 1, 2011 there are exactly 2011 – 33 = 1,978 years, each having 365.2422 days. This equals 722,449.07 days. From April 1, 2011 to May 21, 2011 inclusively (including the first day and the last day) are 51 days. Adding these 51 days to the number 722,449.07 gives us exactly 722,500.07 days, from April 1, 33 A.D. to May 21, 2011 inclusively. This number is enormously significant. Presently we will see why this is so.

Camping has made a mistake. The number of days from April 1, 33, to April 1, 2011, is actually 722,451 days (not 722,449.07). What about his proof? His proof is based on an assumption that April 1, 33, to April 1, 2011, are exactly 1978 years apart, and that a year is 365.2422 days.

Camping's calculation allegedly provides the number of days as 722,449.07, although more precisely the number is 722,449.072. But there's a serious problem with the calculation. The number of days between April 1, 33, and April 1, 2011, is not a fractional number of days. It's an exact integer number of days. That's because the sun rises exactly once each day.

If you're not convinced, try a simple example: April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011. Using Camping's method, that's one year, and consequently it is 365.2422 days. But, in fact, you can go get a calendar and count and verify that, in fact, it is exactly 365 days.

Also, keep in mind that the 365 number is based on counting only one of the two end days. This is the normal way of counting days. For example, we say that April 2 is one day from April 1. That's because we count only the last day (April 2) and not the first day (April 1). So, it is a little strange when Camping asks his readers to count 51 days based on counting both the first day and the last days ("From April 1, 2011 to May 21, 2011 inclusively (including the first day and the last day) are 51 days.")

Using this method means counting from April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011, to be 366 days. Moreover, as we noted before, if one counts both the first and last days, the number of days from April 1, 33, to May 21, 2011, is actually 722,502 days.

It is also strange to see how some of his other calculations work:

Interestingly this same message of salvation or judgment being the result of the Gospel is hidden in the total number of years the Gospel was to be sent by the churches into the world. We have learned that the church age began immediately after Christ demonstrated how He suffered and died to make payment for sin. That was in the year 33 A.D. We learned that the church age officially began on Pentecost, May 22, 33 A.D. It continued exactly 1,955 full years until May 21, 1988 when the church age came to an end.

A few points. 1) Why are days counted with the first and last day both counted, whereas years are counted normally? Those familiar with Camping's work should recognize this kind of arbitrary hermeneutic - a hermeneutic of convenience, if you will.

2) 1955 "full years" according to his 365.2422 number would be 714,048.501 days.

2) But the actual number of days from May 22, 33 A.D. to May 21, 1988 is exactly 714,051 days (including the end date) - which is indeed 1955 full years (including the end date).

Why April 1? According to Camping, April 1, 33 A.D. is when Christ was hanging on the cross, reminding people of the sacrifice he had already made before the foundation of the world.

However, April 1, 33 A.D. was a Wednesday, as you can see in the calculation results already discussed and as you can calculate for yourself (just enter month "4", day "1", and year "0033".

Incidentally, some programs may tell you that April 1, 33, was a Friday (input "4", "1" and "0033" here, for example), but if you look more closely, you will see that these are programs that are using a Gregorian calendar (back before the Gregorian calendar was even invented).

Incidentally, I suspect that this two days (of the week) difference is connected with the two-day error in Camping's calculations, but I am not sure.

- TurretinFan

Blogger Issues

Blogger had some significant service disruptions this past week, and it seems to have damaged a variety of blogs, including this one. From what I can see, the only casualties have been comments, but there may be posts missing as well (I'm told that such things happened to other bloggers).

-TurretinFan

"An Exceedingly Serious Matter" 722,500 or 722,501

One of Camping's key arguments for May 21, 2011, is that May 21, 2011, is 722,500 days from April 1, 33. But if we calculate the number of days from April 1, 33, to May 21, 2011, the number is actually 722,501 or 722,502 (depending on whether we count the last day or not).

Harold Camping says this is an "extremely serious matter." Perhaps he should recheck his calculations.

-TurretinFan

Fear God, not Calvin and Luther!

Mr. Matthew Bellisario has posted a short blog item titled: "Luther, Calvin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao." He selects as his text Matthew 10:28 which states:

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mr. Bellisario has overlooked the fact that there is a shift from plural to singular. The command to "fear him" is a reference to fearing God. It is God who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Thus, when faced with persecution, we ought not to fear our persecutors, but rather we ought to fear God.

Perhaps Mr. Bellisario should read Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea, where he would find the following attributed to Chrysostom (I haven't confirmed that it is authentic, but let it suffice for Mr. Bellisario that his hero Thomas Aquinas approved of it): "Observe how He sets them above all others, encouraging them to set at nought cares, reproaches, perils, yea even the most terrible of all things, death itself, in comparison of the fear of God."

- TurretinFan

Roman Catholics and Heaven

Today I was directed to the following video, in which Doug Wilson answers the question "Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven?"

Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

First of all, for a more in-depth discussion on Roman Catholics and their status, I would suggest people consider the debate between James White and Doug Wilson on "Are Roman Catholics our Brothers in Christ."

Second, I would agree that anyone who is truly repentant for their sins and trusting in Christ alone for salvation will be saved. Communion with Rome is not an unforgivable sin. Nevertheless, one of the fruits of the Spirit is sanctification. One would expect that as a believer undergoes sanctification, they will come to find the idolatry in Rome's liturgy to be the abomination that it is. They will be able to stomach it no longer. That's an expectation, but it is not a strict rule.

Third, the fact that one can be saved in an apostate church is not a good reason to stay in an apostate church, just as the fact that one can be saved even while fornicating is not a good reason to continue fornicating. I'm not saying the two sins are identical, though the Scriptures themselves draw a parallel between idolatry and fornication.

Finally, if you are a Roman Catholic reading this, please know that my primary concern is the state of your soul. I want you to be right with Christ. I'm not pushing some particular denomination or congregation. I'm pushing faith in Christ alone for salvation. Please consider it.

-TurretinFan

PeaceByJesus on the Lord's Supper

PeaceByJesus has provided some exegetical notes on "take eat, this is my body" etc. I'm not aware of any Roman Catholic or Lutheran response to him. A response to his arguments would, however, be welcomed in the comment box here.

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

The Potter's Fredom vs. Chosen But Free - Part 3

I am continuing my series of responses (part 1, part 2) to reviews of Chosen But Free, with a particular emphasis on how I think the students who prepared these reviews might benefit from the rebuttal provided in Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom." The numbering of the reviews picks up from the previous post.

20. ahrang

This review praises Geisler for holding a balanced view. With respect, I think the reviewer might gain a better perspective on Geisler's position by reading the rebuttal provided by Dr. James White's response, "The Potter's Freedom." Likewise, the reviewer indicated that he thought that the book gave him a better perspective on other people's views. Again, I think that if he read "The Potter's Freedom," he would realize that Geisler has presented a number of caricatures which, like the "robot" comment provided in the review, misrepresent the Calvinist position.

21. Theo 202

This review focuses on the issue of what the cause of sin is. The reviewer ultimately takes the position that man is responsible for his own sins. This is, of course, correct. I think the reviewer may be surprised to learn that the Arminian/Calvinist controversy (what the reviewer calls "theological unrest") is not about who has the moral responsibility for sin. Both agree that man is morally responsible for his own sins.

22. Dance My Dreams

This review starts off by suggesting that the whole Calvinism debate is a waste of time. Nevertheless, the reviewer raises a few objections:

God is omniscent, he knows everything and sees everything even when you get saved but you have to be willing to accept him on your own. He has foreknowledge, for example: he knows what our major is going to be before we do. He has a certain path that he wants us to take but it’s up to us to decide if we want to follow it. However our lives are not permanantly fixed. Things change according what road we take.

This objection is easily answered. Even if God only "fore-sees" the future, can God possibly be wrong? Couldn't God write down all the future that will be in stone tablets right now? And if God did so, would anyone be able to make God a liar? Of course not. Even if God only sees the future, the future is fixed. We can't change the future - we can live it out, and we can bring it into being by our actions, but we cannot change what God has already seen - what he might as well have written in stone.

The reviewer than argued:

I refer back to my point earlier on Christ gives us free will is given to all we choose to accept Christ, ourselves not God himself. Plus why do we witness to people then? Imean if Christians are elect then what’s the point of sharing Christ? I guess you would say it is poinless and a waste of time to try. We would eventually deny alot of scripture. Which is not biblical because God gave us scripture to share the gospel and learn from it ourselves. Do we have to belttle Christ’s words and gifts that much? T

But this too is readily answered. We don't change the future, but we do bring about the future. Our actions are the means to an end. We evangelize others because we love them. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, as the Scripture says. Nevertheless, God uses us to bring that about, through evangelization.

But the question the reviewer might consider asking is "why do we pray for people to get saved?" Does God have any control over that? If God is powerless, why pray for the salvation of our friends? But I think the reviewer knows that God is not powerless to save people. Instead, God is able to change the very heart of man. God can transform someone from a god-hating atheist to a God-loving believer. All the glory and credit for that goes to the power of God, not to the free will of man.

23. Theo 202 blogs

This review particularly liked appendix five of Geisler's book, in which Geisler attempts to address certain passages of Scripture. I think this reviewer would really love The Potter's Freedom, because that book spends a very substantial amount of space in providing a detailed analysis of some of the central Biblical texts in the discussion.

24. In Christ Alone

This review focused on chapters three and four of Geisler's book, "Who's in Charge?" and "Why Blame Me?" I suspect that this reviewer would be happy to find that we agree with the points he took away, namely that God is in charge and that we are to blame when we sin.

25. DAVIDLITTLE20

This review was the first review to be sharply critical of Geisler's book. It recommend J. I. Packer's "Knowing God," as a better alternative. I bet the reviewer would find "The Potter's Freedom" to be a breath of fresh air in terms of tackling each of Geisler's points and demonstrating the mistakes, while explaining what the Scriptures have to say about the topic.

26. kristin5129

This review remarkably took the position that Geisler didn't take sides in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Still, the reviewer indicated an appreciation for the need to search the scriptures more diligently. Perhaps this reviewer would enjoy Dr. White's still more diligent searching of the Scriptures in "The Potter's Freedom."

27. Jordan's Blog

This review focused on chapter 4 (Why Blame Me?). The review boils down to an affirmation of the idea that men are to be blamed because they have "free will." The review seems to miss - at least to some extent - the fact that the real issue is the fact that men have a will, as opposed to the fact that it is, in some sense, "free." Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will," provides an excellent explanation of the difference.

28. Theology 202: The Debates

This review presented some agreement with Geisler's position, and in particular argued against "extreme Calvinism" on the basis of omnibenevolence:

I disagree with the extreme Calvinist view that God is not really all loving since I do believe that God loves the world. I do not define the word love by any official dictionary but I define the word love according to 1 Corinthians 13. I believe that He demonstrate His love for us by being patient, kind, justice, and forgiving to all of mankind. He provides a way for us to escape the punishment of sin for everyone that believes in His son.

Let's explore this argument. Is Hell real? Yes. Does God forgive those in hell? Clearly he does not, for they are in hell. Is he kind to them? Well, he's torturing them for eternity. Is he patient with them? He may have been patient with them previously, but his patience for them has run out. Now, they are in hell. Does he provide them with a way of escape? Maybe he did before they were in hell, but he does not now that they are in hell. Using the very criteria that this reviewer has selected, therefore, we can see that God is not strictly speaking omnibenevolent. Perhaps the reviewer will insist that God is still very benevolent, and I would agree with that. But without omnibenevolence, the reviewer's central objection to what Geisler has misleading labelled "extreme Calvinism" collapses.

29. Nora's Blog

This review focuses on the issue of limited atonement. The reviewer adopts Geisler's bad nomenclature of "Extreme Calvinist" to describe those who hold to this Calvinist position. The reviewer actually goes so far as to state that Calvinists reject substitionary atonement. The reviewer stated:

Calvinists go even further in their disagreement of limited atonement by rejecting substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement teaches that Jesus died as a substitution for all humankind. Calvinists reject substitutionary atonement simply because it is in direct discord with their belief that Jesus did not die for all of human kind, but rather for His exclusive elect

This could hardly be farther from the truth. The substitutionary atonement is Jesus dying in the place of his people. Only those who hold to limited atonement can properly affirm this doctrine, since only those who hold to limited atonement can say that Christ actually substituted himself for his people. Those who hold to a universal atonement must make Christ's work non-substitutionary, at least with respect to those in hell. If you are suffering for your sins in hell, Christ has not suffered instead of you - at best according to those who hold to a universal atonement, Christ has suffered in addition to you.

30. Meredith Ann's Blog

This review was another favorable review of Geisler's book. The reviewer focused on issues related to forgiveness and the atonement. But the reviewer's comments seemed to be confused. For example, the reviewer wrote:

Finally, Geisler speaks about whether certain gifts, such as faith, is only given to elect people. (page 228-237) However, specifically speaking about forgiveness on page 232-233; Geisler notes that forgiveness is a gift. This is solely because Christ died on the cross. Because of His death and forgave us of all of our sins, which in my opinion is a pretty nice gift to receive. Geisler also mentions that the gift of forgiveness is not just for elect people. The gift of forgiveness is meant for all of believe; Acts 13:38-39. I completely agree with Geisler on this view point. Mainly because if forgiveness was only for elect people, then what would our faith really be based on? John 3:16 states that “For God so loved the WORLD…”, not “For God so loved the riches people in the nation.” It completely invalidates the claim that Christ came into this world to forgive us, but yet only a handful of people will actually be allowed to receive his forgiveness. This is why I approve of Geisler’s response to the concept of forgiveness.

Perhaps the reviewer should consider that if our sins our forgiven, there is no judgment. If God has forgiven us all of our sins, then we will not go to hell, because God cannot justly punish a sin that He has forgiven.

On the other hand, if God has not forgiven everyone their sins, then forgiveness is only for a subset of people. In fact, the very verse that the reviewer quoted proves this, for it does not stop at "For God so loved the world," but continues "that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "Whosoever believeth" is not "everyone in the world" it is "everyone who believes." It is a subset. All are offered forgiveness, if they will repent of their sins and trust in Christ, but not everyone receives the forgiveness of sins.

(I will attempt to address some more reviews in a subsequent post.)

-TurretinFan

The Potter's Freedom (Cont'd)

Earlier, I posted a response to some reviews of one of Dr. Geisler's books.

It has come to my attention that there are even more reviews of Geisler's Chosen But Free, by a group of students who seem to be unaware of the rebuttal of this work in The Potter's Freedom.

8. The Lovely Insights of Stacey

This review deals with two topics: first the topic of the alleged consequences of "extreme Calvinism." The alleged consequences are not an accurate depiction of Calvinistic churches, as A. W. Pink has demonstrated. The second topic is the issue of perseverance. While I obviously agree with the conclusion that those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will never "lose their salvation," such a position is a little untenable for those who think they get salvation by a free will decision. If that is how you get salvation, then why can't you lose it that way too? The solution to the dilemma is the Biblical doctrine of monergism: that salvation from start to finish is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

9. Reverie Reality

This review, it calls itself a review after all, doesn't address much of the substance of the work. It says Geisler takes a "balanced" approach. I think if the reviewer had read The Potter's Freedom (a response to Chosen But Free), he might get a more balanced perspective. At least, that way he would have heard both sides.

10. ABAIR1013

This review likewise claimed that Geisler takes a "balanced" approach. Like several of the other reviews, this review focused most intently on the "ideas have consequences" aspect. The review actually identified a few points:

Calvinism leads to a failure to accept responsibility because of the belief that all is decided in advance (Geisler 161).

Yet Calvinists don't fail to accept responsibility. This alleged consequence is actually a caricature.

Nothing is your fault because you were going to have done it anyway. This line of thinking also leads to blaming God for the evil in the world (Geisler 162).

Yet Calvinists do hold that things are your fault, and Calvinists place the blame for evil on man, especially on Adam.

If God planned every moment of history than evil had to be apart of his plan. Calvinism also lays the groundwork for universalism, in questioning why would God not plan for all to be saved (Geisler 164).

This sword has two sides. Affirming God's omnipotence is one necessary principle for universalism - but the other is universal saving desire. If you have both, you end up as a universalist. Calvinism doesn't end up in universalism, because Calvinism rightly recognizes that God creates some vessels of mercy and other vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction. That is the Potter's freedom.

A belief in a predestined life undermines a trust in the love of God and the motivation for salvation (Geisler 164).

Calvinists love God even more, because they realize that it was entirely the gift of God and that they were in every way undeserving. They can trust God for their salvation, because they know it is entirely in His hands: what He has begun, he will finish. The motivation for salvation? Isn't that an interesting way of putting it. I understand what the reviewer means, though: the motivation to "get saved." But the motivation is quite clear and doesn't depend on whether God determines your choices or not. The motivation is repent and believe or perish in your sins!

Calvinism also undermines the belief in a need for intercessorary prayer because how could our pleas change what God has already planned to happen (Geisler 165).

This is the most bizarre. Are you praying for God to change the future? I hope not! God sees what the future is. Are you asking God to change that? I don't know anyone who prays that way. You are asking God to take action, not change the future. But what about praying for people's salvation? Only Calvinists can consistently pray for that, because only Calvinists believe that God can save whom He wills.

11. Sarah Anne's Blog

This review focuses on the issue of eternal security. The reviewer expresses her appreciation for Geisler pointing out "the four views" on the issue: "extreme Calvinism," "moderate Calvinism," "Arminianism," and "John Wesley." I hope that the reviewer will consider reading The Potter's Freedom, so that she can see what an actual Calvinist teaches on the subject. We Calvinists, after all, don't buy into Geisler's labels (I'm not sure Wesleyan Arminians do, either).

12. KLTaverna

This review addressed a few points off the beaten path. The first issue noted by the reviewer was the discussion of the fact that God is even in control of the evil angels. The second issue was the issue of God's love. The reviewer found the following compelling: "if God loves only the elect, then He is not Omnibenevolent. God cannot be all-loving if He does not love all" But think about it: does God love those in hell and desire their salvation? Is Hell (eternal torture and suffering) an expression of God's love for men? Surely not. God is all good, but God does not love all mankind in the same way. Hell is real.

Finally, this reviewer touched on Geisler's "three drowning boys" example. At this point I really wished that the reviewer could have the opportunity to read the counter-example provided in The Potter's Freedom. In The Potter's Freedom, Dr. White provides a counter-example that is so much closer to the reality of the situation that it is really eye-opening. He points out that sinners are not like boys drowning while to engage in some harmless swimming fun. Instead, sinners are like arsonists inside a house that they themselves lit on fire.

13. Acceptance by Grace

This review is more of an expression of the reviewers thoughts on free will and predestination than a formal review of the book. While I would be happy to explain to her why I don't believe there is a conflict between the two (once free will is properly understood, as Jonathan Edwards so eloquently explained), I don't see much value in going line-by-line through her comments and responding to them in this context.

14. Herzy's Blog

This review presents some arguments as opposed to simply thoughts on the subject. Perhaps it makes sense to address them:

The Calvinists point is that because of certain verses in the Bible that Jesus among others point to the idea that there are certain people who have been chosen to go to Heaven even before they were born while others were eternally condemned to Hell. I find that hard to agree with because God did not choose only certain people to become members. One reason why is because Christ would not have come to Earth to die if He had already known that they would come to Heaven regardless of Jesus’ sacrifice. The fact that Jesus came to Earth and sacrificed Himself for the sake of sinners shows that He came to save all of His people. And when I say all people, I mean all the people that God created so everyone on Earth.

a) God did, however, choose only certain people to become members. This is what is known in Scripture as "election." It is God choosing.

b) The elect are saved by Christ's death, not "regardless of Christ's death." Calvinists are not fatalists, who believe that God simply ordains the ends and doesn't ordain the means. God sent his only begotten son that "whosever believeth on Him" (that group of all the believers is also known as the elect) should not perish but have everlasting life.

c) The reviewer was right when he said "all of His people." But the reviewer was wrong when he said "all the people that God created so everyone on Earth." Is Christ a failure? Surely not. Christ will save all those whom Christ came to save. That's not everyone - it's "whosoever believes."

15. A Little Bit About Life

This review indicates an appreciation for the fact that Geisler seeks to support his view from Scripture. With that in mind, I think the reviewer would really enjoy The Potter's Freedom. In this answer to Geisler's work, Dr. White provides an even more in-depth study of the relevant Scripture passages.

16. Theology 202

This blog is named for the class for which this review was written. In fact, many of the reviews are on blogs that are the same: blogs specifically created for the class, and which have posts that pretty much are limited to (apparently) the posts required by the class. This review, like some of the others, expresses grief that the of Calvinism vs. Arminianism is tearing the church apart. While I appreciate the reviewer's love of peace, the issues are important issues and they are not going away. The best approach, therefore, is for us to study the Scriptures. That study can be facilitated by comparing the study set forth in Geisler's work with that set forth in The Potter's Freedom.

17. Olinca

This review took the position that Geisler provides middle ground between two extremes. This impression, however, is somewhat mistaken, as Geisler provides mostly a down-the-line Arminian view of the matter, with the exception, perhaps of the issue of "eternal security." To obtain a balanced view, the reviewer should consider picking up the Calvinist answer to Chosen But Free, namely The Potter's Freedom.

18. Salvation in Laymans Terms

This review expresses an opinion shared by some of the other reviewers that the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is foolish. Nevertheless, the reviewer indicated his appreciation for the fact that Geisler used Scripture to establish his position. Given that appreciation, I would hope that the reviwer might be persuaded to pick up a The Potter's Freedom: Calvinist response to Chosen But Free. The response is chock full of Scripture, and explores those Scriptures in depth.

19. Theo 202 with Ergun Caner

This is another blog named for the class. The author identifies himself as a "three point Calvinist," but then goes on to describe the points in a way that seems to reflect a misunderstanding of them. In fact, this is one of the criticisms of Geisler's work: his presentation does not clearly explain the so-called five points of Calvinism to readers. One of the reviewer's comments seemed especially odd:

In his book, Geisler states that God cannot be totally in charge of knowing whether or not we will choose to follow Him or not. If He knew then He would receive no grace whatsoever whenever a person chose to become a Christian.

I trust that this is simply a misrepresentation of what Geisler wrote. But to answer the substance of the comment: God does receive glory when men are saved, because that is God giving the man a gift. God gives the man a new heart, so that the man loves God, and consequently believes on Jesus. Although the man is (you might say) "choosing Jesus," it is not because of something attributable to man, but instead it is the gift of God. So, yes, God is totally in control of who will follow Him, because He shows mercy "on whom he will show mercy," as Scripture teaches.

I see that there are some more reviews as well. I will attempt to address them shortly, if the Lord wills.

-TurretinFan

Proof that Rome is a Sect of Islam

Steve provides an argument (from Bnonn, I think) that tries to prove that those in the Roman communion actually worship Allah. The argument hinges on a statement made by the Second Vatican Council and affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The logic of the argument seems sound, but the conclusion is obviously absurd.

There are a few possible responses to such a reduction to absurdity. One is just to decry the conclusion is absurd and move on. This way is the way of someone who doesn't understand the significance of a reduction to absurdity. The point is not really to affirm the absurdity as truth, but to demonstrate an inconsistency. The first response is not legitimate at all.

A second way to respond to a reduction to absurdity is to challenge the reduction. Perhaps the argument doesn't really reduce to absurdity. After all, there is no need to accept an argument just because Steve Hays (or Bnonn or whoever) made it: even though he's a smart guy, we don't invest him with infallibility. This is a legitimate response, or at least it can be.

This particular case, however, may present us with a case where we should look at the third category of responses. When the conclusion is absurd, and the reasoning is sound, we need to acknowledge that there is an inconsistency or error. Why not just admit that Vatican II was fallible and wrong? That seems to be the most reasonable conclusion to draw.

-TurretinFan

Why Rome is not Chellis' Enemy

(I began this post a year-and-a-half ago. In God's providence, I never published it. Now, it appears that Mr. Chellis has taken the next step in his progression, as reported by Bryan Cross.)

William Chellis has written an article declaring his friendship for Rome. Chellis begins:

Some readers may be disturbed about the DRC [De Regno Christi - the name of the website] trend toward inclusion of Roman Catholics. I wish to say a word in response. I am not unfamiliar with the Reformed Confessions’ descriptions the Bishop of Rome as the anti-Christ. I am also perfectly aware that our theologians have often argued that the Mass as a form of idolatry. I understand that there are many conservative Protestant for which these statements are meaningful. While I understand these things, I cannot affirm them. In fact, the more I learn about Roman Catholic theology and church history, the more respect I have for our brothers and sisters in Christ within the Roman Catholic communion.

(source)

Chellis begins his article, as you can see, with a strange kind of false dichotomy. He contrasts having respect for our brothers and sisters in Christ within the Roman Catholic communion with viewing the Mass as idolatry and the pope as the Antichrist. To the extent that we have brethren in the Roman communion, our respect for them does not alter the theological or eschatological analysis of Scripture. Truth is objective: it's not a matter of being polite and respectful (as indeed we ought to be) or being rude and disrespectful.

Either Scriptural theology provides the conclusion that the mass is idolatrous or it does not. That question is not influenced by whether we are seeking to be respectful of others or not. Either the office of the papacy is "the Antichrist" or it is not: that question too is not influenced by whether we are trying to avoid disrespect.

Chellis attributes his "respect" (which he seems to equate with non-affirmation of the above two Reformation-era views) to "the more I learn about Roman Catholic theology and church history ... ." Again, this seems to be somewhat disconnected. To the extent that we have brethren in the Roman communion, our respect for them should be based on their union with Christ and not with information about the theology of their church or its history.

One still wonders, though, what Chellis is learning about Rome's theology and church history that is endearing her to him? My own experience has been just the opposite: the more I learn about Rome's theology and history, the more I realize what an un-Biblical and dangerous religion it is. In fact, my concern grows for those who are a part of that communion, just as my concern for the souls of Muslims grows as I learn more about Islam.

Chellis continues:

Of course, the primary focus of De Regno Christ[i] has always been the relationship between Christ and culture. Does Christendom have a better friend than Benedict XVI? Which communion did more to press the Kingship of Christ over the nations in the 20th Century? The Reformed Presbyterians, the Christian Reformed, the Presbyterian Church in America, or the Roman Catholics? To ask the question is to answer it. Therefore, does it no[t] behoove us to listen to the voices of Roman Catholic friends of liberty, tradition, and the West?

(same source)

Chellis asks the question: "Does Christendom have a better friend than Benedict XVI?" He asks it rhetorically, apparently thinking that the answer is "no." Yet from the perspective of the Reformation, the question is whether the Gospel has a worse enemy than Benedict XVI (B16), and the answer is "no." B16 attempts to usurp Christ's unique role as head of the church. B16 anathematizes the gospel of Scripture through his adherence to Trent. Worse of all, B16 promotes his own religion as though it were Christian, so as to (if it were possible) deceive the very elect.

Chellis asks: "Which communion did more to press the Kingship of Christ over the nations in the 20th Century? The Reformed Presbyterians, the Christian Reformed, the Presbyterian Church in America, or the Roman Catholics?" Chellis assumes the answer is that Roman Catholics did this, but one is left scratching one's head as to why Chellis thinks this. Christ's Kingship is tied to the gospel, but Rome has not been promoting the gospel either in the 20th century or the present century. Thus, the RPCNA and PCA (and even the CRC), who have all been promoting the gospel, have done more for the kingship of Christ than the church that has multiplied statues purporting to be of Christ and encouraged the worship of bread and wine as though it were very Christ.

Chellis' comment, "Therefore, does it no[t] behoove us to listen to the voices of Roman Catholic friends of liberty, tradition, and the West?" is also puzzling. They may be our friends (in some sense) for a variety of reasons, but when it comes to the gospel, they are (sadly) the enemies of the kingdom of heaven (as were once we).

Chellis concludes:

The cause of Christ’s Kingship has many enemies in the wor[l]d. Traditionalist defenders of Roman Catholicism are not among them.

(Same source)

Here at last we see what Chellis has been speaking of when he identifies his spiritual brethren. He means the traditionalist Roman Catholics as distinct (we assume) from the liberal Roman Catholics and the nominal Roman Catholics. These would be Roman Catholics who actually believe what Rome teaches. But what Rome teaches is not the gospel. If there are members of the Roman communion who are true believers in Christ, they are not following what Rome teaches. If there are those who have trusted in Christ but have not yet left Rome, they are not going to be able to stay "traditionalist" for long as the Spirit works in their lives.

[This is where I had ended my draft.]

I am sad to see that Chellis is now referring to himself as an "Augustinian Anglo-Papist," but I understand that it is because he never truly saw the horror of Rome's idolatry, and of the attempted usurpation of God's authority that is the papacy. May God be pleased to return Mr. Chellis to the church! Let us all, as much as we care about him, pray to that end.

-TurretinFan

A Quick Comment on the Fastigi Infallibility

The Fastigi vs. White debate took place a number of years ago. I was listening to it today and happened to notice the quotation that is described by Fastigi as the culmination of patristic quotations in favor of papal infallibility. And what was that quotation? It was Chalcedon's comment, which I have already fully explained, "Peter has spoken (to us) through Leo." (parenthetical in Fastigi's quotation) If that's the best that's out there, there really isn't much Rome has to offer by way of historical evidence to support its historical assertions.

Some Follow Up Regarding Rejoicing When the Wicked Perish

My objector, Mr. Landless, has provided a blog post in response to my previous entry.

He indicates he desires no blog war, so I'll try to hit a few points without going line-by-line through his response.

1) My pseudonym is TurretinFan or Tur8inFan, but not Turrentinfan or Turrintanfan.

2) Mr. Landless thinks we are largely in agreement, except over some semantic issues. I hope he's right, and I am glad if he is.

3) Mr. Landless argues that we should exemplify love not revenge. His argument is based on the way that Christ treated his enemies during his incarnation. His argument seems to be undermined by the way in which Christ is going to treat his enemies at his second coming. At that time he will come in vengeance, and his saints will praise him.

Revelation 19:1-2
And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: for true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

We can praise God even now for his judgments. And we can even rejoice:

Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

When God answers the prayers of the martyrs:

Revelations 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

I won't belabour the point.

Suffice that there is a harmonization. We can and should love our personal enemies. We, on the other hand, may rejoice when God triumphs over his enemies and our persecutors, whether God converts them (like Saul) or God slays them (like Osama).

4) Mr. Landless argues that "none of [what TurretinFan wrote] offsets the rather simple point that God does not delight in the death of wicked, unrepentant men." Sometimes the "simple point" is incorrect. The point being made in the passage is nuanced, as I already explained. It is not that God is unhappy about judging the people he judges, or that God is not pleased to punish those he punishes. The issue relates to the revealed will of God, and the relative moral good of repentance as opposed to undergoing destruction.

Mr. Landless even argues that Calvin himself says that God is grieved by the death of the wicked, providing links to passages of Calvin. But the first mentions grief apparently only in the mouth of an objector who Calvin immediately answers ("But the Prophets words are plain, for God testifies with grief that he willeth not the death of a mortal. I answer, that there is no absurdity, as we said before, in God’s undertaking a twofold character, not that he is two-faced himself, as those profane dogs blurt out against us, but because his counsels are incomprehensible by us." ) and the second doesn't mention grief at all. In both cases, Calvin refers the passage (as I did) to the revealed will of God: a revealed will in which all are called to salvation through repentance and faith.

5) Mr. Landless objects to my quotation of various passages to the effect that God will laugh at the destruction of the wicked. He makes a variety of objections. He first argues that the genre for the Psalms is poetic and that these are examples of anthropomorphic language. I agree - and yet it does not change the thrust of the passages. The point of the passages is to express God's attitude toward the destruction of the wicked. It is not an attitude of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, it is one of derisive laughter. Mr. Landless examines the context of each of the quotations (a very worthy approach) and attempts to distinguish each one. I'd be happy to provide a more detailed response, but I don't find his attempt to distinguish very compelling. They are:

When it speaks of God laughing, this is not a gleeful delight at the expense of dying, unrepentant men, but rather at nations and leaders gathering in arrogant rebellion against his anointed king; the very king whom he had placed on the throne to govern his chosen people Israel.

The psalm tells us that the "peoples" of the earth - the hostile nations - have wicked conspiratorial plans, and that they are so arrogant they seriously believe they can outmatch the Creator of all the world. But God, enthroned in heaven, laughs, and answers their challenge with a sovereign statement: "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill". He then says to the newly crowned king, "You are my Son, today I have become your Father".

I don't know why it needs to be "gleeful delight." It certainly is delight, delight at their destruction.

Again:

Once again, this psalm does not prove Turrentinfan's point. Even if we were to dismiss the allegorical nature of the text it still tells us only that God laughs at the wicked because he sees their impending comeuppance; he does not laugh because the wicked are perishing.

Their comeuppance is them perishing. So, I'm not sure how this is a distinction that makes a difference. Moreover, the fact that it is anthropomorphic is really beside the point, as explained above.

Again:

Here, once again, Turrentinfan seems not to distinguish between God's delight in seeing justice done and a delight in destroying men. The two are quite different. One's delight in justice, does not mean that one is happy when that same justice leads to death and misery. A judge can be glad that the victims of violence have been avenged and an evil man's wickedness brought to its termination, and yet be equally saddened by the effects of sin, the power of sin, and the unfortunate end of all sin.

Actually, this point is contrary to the point in Ezekiel. In Ezekiel, God is contrasting Justice and Mercy, not Justice and Judgment. Moreover, God does not distinguish between justice and judgment in the Psalms in question. In fact, God expresses his love of justice by expressing his love of judgment. Mr. Landless may rightly infer that the reason God loves judgment is because of God's justice, but God does not distinguish between the two, so as to affirm one and not the other.

Finally:

This psalm is a plea for deliverance from enemy attack, quite probably written when Jerusalem was under siege. Again, a simple contextual reading demonstrates that God is not relishing the prospect of shunting these men out of daylight and into the burning chasm of hell. Rather, he holds in contempt the enemy nations gathered to destroy his chosen people, and also those who are in their pay and traitorously use their tongue as a weapon to sow discord among the defenders, apparently in the arrogant belief that no one could hear them.

He's not merely holding them in contempt (though he's doing that), he's laughing at them and their impending punishment, as the form of that particular psalm (Psalm 59) demonstrates.

6) Mr. Landless seems to think that Herod (referring to Herod the Great, apparently) was worse than Osama. I hadn't explored this much in the previous post, mostly because I didn't know which Herod Mr. Landless had in mind. Herod the Great's death occurred when Jesus was still an infant or toddler. The Scriptures record almost nothing about the reaction of the godly to the event, except that when it occurred, Joseph returned with his family from Egypt. There is no discussion of whether they celebrated, or whether the grieved at the death of that horrible man. As I previously noted, any argument from silence is dangerous. Whether Herod the Great was worse than Osama is a point that could reasonably be debated. I have no particular desire to do so, but the interested reader may peruse Mr. Landless' entry for a recitation of some of the atrocities attributed to him.

-TurretinFan

John Piper on Osama's Death

I don't agree with everything that John Piper says about this, but I found his comments thought-provoking and - more importantly - Biblically focused. His comments stand in remarkable contrast (in my mind at least) to the comments of Prof. Horton, which I discussed earlier today.

For example, I would disagree with Piper's claim that God has emotions, or that our emotional conflicts make us "God-like," but I found his following comment insightful:

My suggestion is that the death and misery of the unrepentant is in and of itself not a pleasure to God. God is not a sadist. He is not malicious or bloodthirsty. The death and suffering considered for itself alone is not his delight.

Rather, when a rebellious, wicked, unbelieving person is judged, what God has pleasure in is the exaltation of truth and righteousness, and the vindication of his own honor and glory.

- TurretinFan

An Example of the Exegetical Blunders of Horton's View of the Two Kingdoms

Prof. Michael Horton has an article entitled, "The Death of Osama bin Ladin: What Kind of Justice Has Been Done?" Horton takes the occasion of bin Ladin's death as a chance to attempt to propagate his unhistorical view of the two kingdoms. I don't mean to suggest that the idea of two kingdoms is not historical. What I am suggesting is that the view of the two kingdoms that one sees from Escondido today is a view contrary to that of all the original Reformed confessions (at least, all the major ones, and particularly the big two: the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession). More importantly, it is contrary to Scripture, Natural Law, and sound reason.

This attack on the historic Reformed faith is bolstered by extremely tenuous "exegesis" of Scripture. I am using quotation marks, because I think the label is generous to a fault. Perhaps a more accurate assessment would be "prooftexting." Here's Horton's argument:

Cultures are the most dangerous when they invoke holy texts for their defense of holy land through holy war. However, Christians have no biblical basis for doing this in the first place. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel. Now is the era of common grace and common land, obeying rulers—even pagan ones—and living under constitutions other than the one that God gave through Moses. As Paul reminds us in Romans 13, secular rulers are given the power of the temporal sword—finite justice—while the gospel conquers in the power of the Spirit through that Word "above all earthly pow'rs."

Notice the techniques that Horton uses. Horton makes an emotional appeal to a threat of danger. Yet the most dangerous cultures of the 20th century were Communist Russia and Communist China, neither of which invoked holy text for their defense of holy land through holy war. Israel, by contrast, in the same century invoked holy text for their defense of holy land through holy war. Whether one favors them or not, their six day war was one of the least bloody wars of the century (total causalities apparently less than 50,000).

Horton's next statement about Christians having no biblical basis for defending holy land through holy war on the basis of holy text is unclear. There are various things he could mean. If he simply means that there is no "promised land" for Christians in this world (instead, we wait for the next world), he is correct. If, on the other hand, he means that the Bible cannot justify the defense of Christian lands (lands occupied by Christians), he's mistaken.

Where Horton blunders is his next line: "In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel." I realize Horton threw his "clearly" in there as a way of pounding on the lectern at this particularly weak point in his article. Nevertheless, no - the Sermon on the Mount does not abrogate either the civil or the ceremonial law.

I am hesitant to paste all three chapters of the sermon here. Perhaps it suffices to illustrate the point to quote the following:

Matthew 5:17-18
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Does Horton think that Heaven and Earth had already passed at that time? Surely not. Even though the ceremonial law would later be abrogated, it was not yet abrogated at this time. How can we know? Well, in chapter 8 (immediately after the conclusion of the sermon) Jesus instructs an ex-leper to follow the ceremonial law:

Matthew 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Moreover we know that Jesus kept the passover.

Matthew 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

Need I go on?

The clean/unclean distinctions of the ceremonial law were abrogated by a vision given to Peter. Recall:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

It was not, therefore, abrogated in the sermon on the mount, as Horton alleged.

Moreover, the civil law of Israel continued to be in force until Jerusalem was destroyed. Jesus himself commanded his disciples that they should obey the Sanhedrin, justifying that command on the basis that they "sit in the seat of Moses," that is, they occupy the role of legislators.

So, neither was the civil law abrogated at the Sermon on the Mount nor even by the cross itself.

Indeed, we distinguish (in Reformed theology) between the abrogation of the ceremonial law (which was fulfilled in Christ), and the expiration of the civil law (which was appointed specifically for the nation of Israel, and which was, as a nation, destroyed though a remnant was spared). Moreover, unlike the ceremonial law, the general equity of the civil law endures. That is because Justice is one of God's attributes: and the laws of Israel were just laws given by a just God.

Horton continued his blunders this way: "Now is the era of common grace and common land, obeying rulers—even pagan ones—and living under constitutions other than the one that God gave through Moses." If we are to understand by "common grace" what has been always understood by that term, God sending the rain upon the just and the unjust, then every time period has been the era of common grace. If by "common land," Horton means that we Gentiles don't have a specific land grant from God, that too has always been the case. If Horton means that we today live with unbelievers amongst us, that too has always been the case.

Except where obeying pagan rulers involved disobeying God, the people of God have always obeyed pagan rulers when pagan rulers were over them. Recall Daniel and Jeremiah as examples of this in the Old Testament - or Jesus himself in the New Testament.

The law of Moses didn't actually constitute the civil kingdom of Israel. There were elders of Israel before Moses, there were elders during the time of Moses, and there continued to be elders even during the times of the kings.

Nevertheless, the law of Moses did order the civil laws of Israel in accordance with the principles of justice and equity. The laws of Moses had, in theory, supreme power like the U.S. Constitution is supposed to have. However, both before and after Christ the people of God have often found themselves under regimes in which the law of God was not honored by the monarchs, elders, or people. That is true both of regimes in which the law of God was honored with the lips of the rulers, and also in regimes in which it did not even receive lip service.

Horton concludes (this particular paragraph) with: "As Paul reminds us in Romans 13, secular rulers are given the power of the temporal sword—finite justice—while the gospel conquers in the power of the Spirit through that Word 'above all earthly pow'rs.'" Paul doesn't specify that the powers are "secular." Paul says

Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Notice that Paul calls the powers that be "of God" and "ordained of God" and repeatedly calls the ruler "the minster of God" and "God's ministers." Their duties are not the duties of the ministers of the gospel, but they are still ministers of God. There remains an intimate connection between theology and the civil magistrate, therefore. Their laws are called the "ordinance of God," even their very unpleasant tax laws.

Is their power finite? Of course it is. None of God's ministers (neither ministers of justice nor ministers of the gospel) have infinite power. Yet both are - or ought to be - servants of the same God, aiding the people in a complementary way.

Horton goes on in the article (be sure to click through to page 2 - page 3 is just bio) to actually quote from Romans 13. Horton writes:

First, it means that we can rejoice that even in this present evil age, God's common grace and common justice are being displayed through secular authorities. "For [the ruler] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. … Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed" (Rom. 13:4, 7). Yet the divine wrath that rulers execute is temporal and finite rather than eternal and infinite. Such justice is never so pure that it is unmingled with injustice, never so final that it satisfies God's eternal law.

There is, of course, no need to qualify God's justice as "common." We only qualify "common grace" that way to distinguish it from saving grace. God's justice is one of His eternal attributes, as Horton ought to know:

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 7. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

Horton even has the temerity to quote from Calvin (whose view of the two kingdoms is incompatible with Horton's):

In view of the image of God stamped on every person, justice must always be tempered by love. Commenting on Genesis 9:6, John Calvin reminded us that we cannot hate even our most perverse enemies, because of the image of God in them. In one sense, the creation of every person in God's image provokes the temporal sword against murderers. Yet in another sense, it also restrains our lust for revenge. "Should any one object, that this divine image has been obliterated, the solution is easy; first, there yet exists some remnant of it, so that man is possessed of no small dignity; and, secondly, the Celestial Creator himself, however corrupted man may be, still keeps in view the end of his original creation; and according to his example, we ought to consider for what end he created men, and what excellence he has bestowed upon them above the rest of living beings."

Notice that this deals with issues related to our personal vindication. But for most of us, Osama was not our personal enemy. He did not burn down our houses, kill our loved ones, or even badmouth us on a blog. Instead, Osama was an enemy of Christian nations, of Christians, and of Christ. He was God's enemy. While I would have rejoiced even more to see Osama converted, I rightly rejoice in seeing God's justice meted out by the servants of God - the ministers of His wrath.

After a brief appeal to Ezekiel (which I have substantially answered already), Horton makes a comment that we ought urgently fulfill the mandate to preach the gospel. I agree! (For that matter, I agree with lots of things that Horton says. I just don't agree with his promotion of his two kingdoms view in contrast to Calvin's two kingdoms view. That doesn't mean I consider Horton a heretic, but rather a brother in Christ with whom I sharply disagree on a particular point.)

Horton concludes:

So as we take satisfaction in the honorable service of U.S. forces in bringing a terrorist to justice in the court of the temporal city, let us never dare to confuse this with "the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God" (Heb. 11:10). In our response, let us use this opportunity to display to our non-Christian neighbors the radical contrasts between the biblical view of God, humanity, redemption, and the last judgment, and the religious and secularist distortions—even those that profess to be Christian.

I have two issues with this. First, he's laying on the metaphors a little thick. The SEALs did bring this terrorist leader to justice. It is justice in God's eyes, for God declared:

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

There is no need to qualify this justice in terms of "the temporal city," but we cannot really object to him saying that, for this life is indeed temporal. We must point out, however, that this justice is exactly the same in substance as the justice meted out by the law of Moses. Those who died for murder under the law of Moses may have died in a different mode (stoning rather than being shot in the head), but the punishment they received was the same: physical death.

This justice was not meted out in court. It was meted out in the field. Obviously, I think Horton meant that metaphorically. Nevertheless, in this kind of context, those metaphors can tend to have the effect of confusing rather than enlightening.

That confusion seems to be compounded by Horton's reference to the city whose builder and maker is God. That city is heaven. Surely Horton does not seriously worry that people will think that this present life is heaven. Instead, it appears that Horton is trying to position the city whose builder and maker is God as being a "here and now" thing that could be confused with the "secular" world. Yet Horton's position is undermined by the very text he quotes.

After all, Abraham is described this way:

Hebrew 11:9-10
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Abraham was not looking for something "here and now" but something "not yet." Abraham was looking forward - on this point - to heaven itself. He was a pilgrim on the earth, as are we. There is a continuity, not a discontinuity, between us and Abraham on this point.

Indeed, Scripture itself declares:

Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

And Jesus testified:

John 14:2-3
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Finally, let me touch on Horton's concluding sentence:

In our response, let us use this opportunity to display to our non-Christian neighbors the radical contrasts between the biblical view of God, humanity, redemption, and the last judgment, and the religious and secularist distortions—even those that profess to be Christian.

This statement is ambiguously worded, so that is not clear who it is Horton views as merely professing Christians. Horton's main opponents with respect to these points would seem to be Evangelicals, either modern (who perhaps have simply gotten caught up in the fever of patriotism) or historic (who reject on Biblical grounds Horton's view of the two kingdoms). If Horton is calling those groups merely professing Christian, this is quite troubling. If not, it is unclear who Horton thinks might be disagreeing with him.

Of course, ambiguity is not a crime. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if Horton could be more specific about who he doesn't view as his Christian brother. Despite my principled disagreement with his departure from the historic Reformed position, I still consider Horton a brother in Christ. I hope he feels the same way.

-TurretinFan