Bryan Cross versus the Evidence

Bryan Cross writes: "All the historical evidence Lampe cites in his book, even when taken together in aggregate, is fully compatible with there being a monarchical bishop in Rome. Twelve times zero is still zero; it isn’t greater than one times zero." (source) This response appears to combine sophistry and ignorance in a particularly insidious way.

In what way is the Evidence "Fully Compatible" with a Roman Monarchical Episcopate?
By "fully compatible" Bryan simply means that there is some possible way to view the evidence as fitting in with his hypothesis of a monarchical bishop in Rome. So, for example, when confronted with the Eusebius says he created a succession list when he came to Rome, Bryan speculates that Eusebius may have used a pre-existing list to make his own list.

Similarly, regarding the evidence of the role of presbyters in particular ancient Roman controversies, without reference to any monarchical bishop, Bryan argues: "This is an argument from silence, which is a fallacy when there is no objective standard by which to know the likelihood of non-silence given the truth of the hypothesis [e.g. that there was a monarchical bishop]." (bracketed material is Bryan's.)

In short, even if every historical account of first and early second century Rome is silent regarding any monarchical bishop there, and even if some of those accounts actually do make reference to an authority structure of presbyters/elders, Bryan is going to call this "fully compatible."

Why is Bryan's "Fully Compatible" Claim Absurd?
Put this in perspective: suppose my hypothesis is that Abraham Lincoln's identical twin brother delivered the Gettysburg Address. The fact there is no contemporary account of Lincoln having an identical twin brother is "fully compatible" with my hypothesis in exactly the same way that the absence of contemporary historical evidence of a monarchical bishop in Rome is "fully compatible" with such a bishop actually existing. In other words, the "fully compatible" bar as used by Bryan is such a low bar it permits all kinds of absurd hypotheses.

So, it is sophistical for Bryan to respond that the evidence is "fully compatible" (in such a sense) with his hypothesis.  Such a response suggests that the historical evidence is not problematic with respect to his hypothesis, when - in fact - it is devastating to his hypothesis.

What about the Twelve-Times-Zero Argument?
This argument seems to stem from Bryan's ignorance. When it comes to the question of whether the hypothesis of a monarchical bishop is true, the amount of inconsistent evidence matters. So, for example, if we had no contemporaneous accounts of Rome, the silence of such accounts on any particular issue would be of very little significance. It might be surprising that such information would be lost (had it existed), but that would be the extent of the problem.

On the other hand, when there is a positive account of Rome and it omits any mention of the supposed monarchical bishop of Rome, this is more problematic for the monarchical bishop in Rome hypothesis. When there are two or more such accounts and they all fail to mention this alleged bishop, the problem is increasingly worse. Obviously, if we had 10,000 such accounts and none mentioned the alleged bishop, well - that would be that much stronger.

The reason, of course, is that such "silence" is not a zero.

Furthermore, not all of the evidence is silence. For example, some of the evidence is evidence of the life of the church in Rome at the time. Rome was an enormous city by ancient standards. Furthermore, Rome was a city with a lot of immigrants. There is evidence that the Christians in Rome did not all meet together for worship, but instead that they met in different groups, in house churches. For example, Paul writes:

Romans 16:3-5
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

and then again:

Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

and again:

Romans 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

(and, of course, Paul does not mention in his salutations any of the men set forth as purportedly the early monarchical bishops, but that brings us back to this silence that Bryan is trying hard to suppress)

Similarly, there is evidence that there was an absence of a central structure to the Roman church. Thus, for example, Onesiphorus could not easily locate Paul when he came to Rome:

2 Timothy 1:16-17
The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.

In short there is evidence that the Christian groups were scattered around the city in various groups. It would have been administratively challenging for a single monarchical bishop to govern such scattered house churches. So, the very historical situation of the churches in Rome weighs against having such a mode of government in Rome.

Indeed, this evidence suggests that at least initially there probably was not a central authority of any kind in Rome - not just that there was no monarchical bishop, but that there was not necessarily even any well-established presbytery.  Rather individual churches were governed by presbyter/elders, as the apostles taught churches should be governed.

This kind of evidence is not a "Zero." On the contrary, it paints a picture of Rome in which Bryan's hypothesis becomes increasingly implausible and unfeasible.  In fact, there wasn't a single monarchical bishop of Rome in the first century or early second century.  Eventually there was such a bishop, but such a development required things like organization of the Roman churches.

Is Bryan Really Looking at the Evidence like an Historian?
No.  For a historian, the aggregation of historical evidence is used to paint a picture of what existed at the time.  Silence is important to historians.  Moreover, historians are also interested in historical context that lends credibility (or contrariwise) to historical claims.

The problem for Bryan is that Rome's historical claims are not historically credible.  On the contrary, history contradicts Rome's historical claims.  Not only was there no papacy from the beginning - there was not even a monarchical bishop of Rome from the beginning.

Keep in mind, historians are not infallible.  The only infallible writings we have are Scripture -- and Scripture is an even worse enemy of the papacy than history is.

-TurretinFan

Restore Balance in the Two Kingdoms

This is the kind of comment that leads people to call an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms, "radical two kingdoms":

Indeed, in general terms, it seems from the New Testament that the less we have to do with the magistrate, the better it will be for us.

(source R. Scott Clark)

That's the same R. Scott Clark who was recently stumping for civil magistrate on his blog as discussed at this link.

Clark further states:

Nevertheless, when it comes to the visible, institutional church, the Scriptures enjoin on us an attitude of submission and a desire to protect those who look after the welfare of our souls that it does not require of us regarding the civil magistrate, who looks after our outward, common, shared life. The magistrate, in his office, is not enjoined to pray for us.

I respond:
a) The duty of submission is a mutual duty of the brethren, not a one-way duty toward elders.
Peter, in his first catholic epistle, says:

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Likewise, Paul teaches us:

Ephesians 5:21
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

b) We are explicitly told to submit ourselves unto those who have worldly authority:
That same Peter in the same book we mentioned above - earlier in the book - says:

1 Peter 2:13-14
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Likewise, still earlier:

1 Peter 2:17
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Similarly:

Colossians 3:22-24
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

Indeed, these commands are quite closely paired with obedience to the Lord.

c) Clark seems to have in mind the following passage from Hebrews:

Hebrews 13:17-18
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

But this resembles Paul's exhortation regarding kings:

1 Timothy 2:1-4
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Incidentally, the structure of Hebrews 13 is quite beautiful - it includes "Remember them which have the rule over you ... Obey them that have the rule over you ... Salute all them that have the rule over you ...."

d) Furthermore, while there may not be an explicit command for kings to pray for those entrusted to them, that surely is a logical inference to be drawn from the duties of superiors to inferiors.

e) Moreover, the Scriptures do explicitly norm kings and those in authority:

Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

f) Certainly, we should not fall into the opposite extreme from Clark, of some kind of democratic congregationalism and denial that those who have rule over us in the church do not have any rule over us in the church. I hope no one will take my criticism of one imbalance to suggest the opposite imbalance.

g) Rather, neither magistrates nor elders of the church are priests whose job it is to stand between us and God. While those who rule over us bring the Word of God to us and set a good example for us (Hebrews 13:7) the great Shepherd of the sheep is Christ (Hebrews 13:20). Christ is Lord over all - both Lord of the Sword and the Gospel. The cattle on a thousand hills are his.

- TurretinFan

The "We Dressed Differently" Claim

Dr. Ergun Caner has sometimes claimed that he "dressed differently" than typical Americans back when, as a young boy, he was allegedly a devout Muslim. One reason to question this claim is the photo of his father in front of the Islamic Center that he supposedly "built."

Someone dressed as an imam is near the center of the picture, and Caner's father is allegedly to his right (our left). But wait, if the Caners dressed differently than typical Americans, wouldn't that appear in photos like this one? I mean - the one surely safe place to wear Islamic garb would surely be right in front of a posted Islamic Center, wouldn't it? Yet even for this picture, Caner's father is wearing typical Western clothes.

Also, notice that except for the imam, all the men are in Western clothes. In other words, Caner's father looks like the rule, not the exception, for the Muslims of this particular Islamic Center.

Recall that Norm Geisler tried to defend Caner this way (link to source):

5. Caner claims to have worn a Muslim "keffiyeh"(head covering) before his conversion to Christianity, yet photos show him with his head uncovered. This reveals that he was not a devout Muslim and that he intended to deceive when claiming to be one.

Response: Ergun’s brother Emir vouches for their devout Muslim background. He has provided a picture (below) of Ergun with his head covered (sitting down). Of course, there were other times when he had no covering on which would be natural.

[TFan note: link to photo is broken]

Other evidence of his being a devout Muslim is available, such as Ergun’s circumcision ceremony and participation in the reading and recitation of the Qur’an. Further, that Ergun was reared a devout Muslim is proven by his father’s testimony recorded in the divorce proceedings documents which ironically Ergun’s critic placed on the internet.

Whether or not Caner was a "devout" Muslim is one question - whether Caner regularly dressed like Lawrence of Arabia, is another question.  Given that his father apparently did not so dress, even for a posed photo at the Islamic Center with the imam, what are the odds that Caner himself regularly wore Islamic garb to highschool?

-TurretinFan

Notice that Caner proudly posts this picture as his background on his full twitter page (link).

UPDATE: I should add that the only leadership position we've been able to document Acar Caner holding is as President (at least twice) of the Turkish American Association of Central Ohio (TAACO) (link to site). That page also includes a picture of Acar Caner:

(sorry about the low quality)(previously reported here)
Now, not only does Acar plainly not wear any kind of Lawrence of Arabia style headgear, even in this role in a Turkish-American association, he doesn't appear to be wearing Sunni-style robes.  In fact, if you look at the page and see all the presidents (including women presidents), you'll see that none of them seem to be wearing distinctively Sunni clothing.  Indeed, the women aren't even wearing headscarves.  Of course, as we've said elsewhere - dressing in Western style was normal for Turkish Muslims in that era.  If Caner had dressed differently, he would have been an unusual Turk indeed.

Also, see this picture:

And this picture:

And notice how the sons are dressed in those same pictures: western style clothes.

Likewise, remember the yearbook photos from my "Who is Dr. Caner" post (link to post).

Further Update:

Also recall this photo allegedly of Caner in the mosque with a rifle:

Notice that although the girl does seem to be dressed up, Caner and all the other males in the picture are wearing typical western clothes.

Calvin vs.(?) Turretin on Inerrancy

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is sometimes associated with Francis Turretin (the real one, not me, his fan).  There was an interesting article in the Autumn 2011 edition of "Foundations," which addresses the question, "Did Turretin Depart from Calvin's View on the Concept of Error in the Scriptures" (link to pdf of whole issue).  The author, Ralph Cunnington, does an excellent job of demonstrating and explaining that - in fact - both Calvin and Turretin were in agreement.  His conclusion states:

Calvin and Turretin both held to a view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture which affirmed that the Scriptures as originally given were without error in all that they affirmed. The view that Calvin only affirmed the infallibility of the saving content of Scripture rests upon decidedly unpersuasive grounds and conflicts with Calvin’s unambiguous statements to the contrary.
Furthermore, the contention that a radical disjunction exists between Calvin’s view of Scripture and that of Turretin remains unproven. While a shift in the form of theological discourse unquestionably took place in the seventeenth century, the content of orthodox doctrine remained substantially the same. Far from dispensing with Calvin’s doctrine of inspiration, Turretin sought to defend it against the new challenges that it faced in the seventeenth century. While his methodology may be questioned, we should be in no doubt that Turretin intended his doctrine to be an expression of continuity with the doctrine expounded by the Reformers.

But please read the article for yourselves!

- TurretinFan

Lightning Breaks Idol - Men Repair

The New York Post reports (link) that lightning broke a finger off the idol purporting to be of Jesus Christ, in Rio de Janeiro.  The idol cannot protect itself from lightning (this is not the first time it's been struck).  Moreover, God - who sends the lightning - has actually broken the idol.  Yet, instead of just abandoning (or better yet razing) this idol, the plan is to repair it.  One is reminded of a similar situation in Scripture:

I Samuel 5:1-5 And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again. And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.

The idol of Rio de Janeiro purports to be of the true and living God, but it is as helpless as the statue of Dagon.  It would be better for the men of Rio to raze this idol, rather than continually repairing it.

And it is not only the men of Rio who have such a sad lust for idols.  Recall that not long ago God sent lightning and destroyed the statue in Monroe, Ohio (link to story), with again the men saying that they plan to rebuild.

-TurretinFan

The Roman Catholic Problem of Hell

Scott Windsor has a post, "The Matter of Hell," in which he sides with unordained Michael Voris against ordained priest Robert Barron. By contrast, Mark Shea has a post, "Michael Voris Again Smears an Innocent Catholic," in which he sides with Barron against Voris.

Shea argues that Barron is saying almost exactly what Pope Benedict XVI said on the topic, whereas Windsor argues that Barron's position comes close to falling under the condemnation of the Second Council of Constantinople. Per Windsor, Barron's view is "scandalous at best and perhaps even heretical" whereas Shea thinks "Barron is guilty of no heresy, has said nothing “wrong” and is perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation."

At issue is Barron's apparent view (which he says agrees with Balthazar's view) we should believe that Hell is at least possible (as a metaphor for loneliness from divine love, not actually a place) but that we can reasonably hope that Hell is empty based on God's universal salvific desire. Barron concedes to the big tent nature of Roman Catholicism, pointing out that folks like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would disagree with him.

Shea likewise balances his comment by pointing out:

Now those, such as Ralph Martin who speculate that few will be saved are also (obviously) also within the pale of orthodoxy and share their opinion with not a few Fathers and theologians. But at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church.

But it's not just Windsor and Voris vs. Shea and Barron. We could add that we have previously pointed out contemporary cardinals holding that hell may be empty (Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor).

So, what's the big deal? Well, on the one hand - the Scriptures are clear that there will be men in hell. For example:

Matthew 7:23
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Romans 9:22
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:

Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And we could on and on.  Although the great Origen erred in hoping for the eventual restoration of all creation, such a view is not consistent with Scripture's teachings both that hell is real and that the punishment of hell is eternal punishment.

So, on the one hand, Windsor is right that people like Barron and a couple of Windsor's cardinals are wrong.  On the other hand, such a problem is not resolvable on Roman Catholic grounds for basically the reasons that Shea and Barron enunciate: there has been no "official teaching" that anathematizes one or the other position, and consequently both contradictory positions are acceptable, even though both cannot be right.

Worse yet for Windsor and Voris, the evidence is that the current hierarchy supports and teaches the erroneous view.  I have not confirmed whether Shea is accurate in characterizing the teachings of Benedict XVI, but it clearly extends at least up to the cardinals.

The most remarkably thing is that Windsor and Voris continue to trust in this church (which teaches and promotes errors that they themselves are able to identify) rather than trusting in God alone and His Word. They may be able to convince themselves that these same hierarchs would never commit their erroneous doctrines to an allegedly infallible document, but such thinking seems wishful indeed in view of the highly compromised documents of Vatican II, not to mention the victory of the ultramontanists in Vatican I.

-TurretinFan

Unbalanced "Two Kingdoms" and Political Campaigns

Prof. Clark has a couple of posts up praising Ben Sasse and even including one of his political campaign advertisements ("Ben is a Straight Shooter" | "Ben is Speaking Up About Religious Liberty"). Personally, I can't vouch for Mr. Sasse (nor do I have any particular criticisms), and that's not the point of this post.

Among other things, Clark writes:

So, in light of the drift of the culture and the Christian accommodation to that drift, it has been interesting to watch Ben Sasse’s campaign for the U. S. Senate from Nebraska.

I appreciate Clark's concern against Christian accommodation of the culture. At the same time, that's one of the problems with an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms. It is an accommodation to the cultural norm that the state is to be "secular" rather than being normed by Scripture.

One of the ironies of the posts is that posts like these, which appear to be stumping for a particular candidate, would appear to violate the principles of the Darryl Hart-type unbalanced two kingdoms view. One of the commenters presented this issue, and in response Clark asked:

What about the twofold kingdom means that Christians cannot engage the civil realm?

and again

Now, once more, what is it about the twofold kingdom that prevents Christians from observing and commenting on the civil/political sphere?

I wasn't the commenter in question, so Clark wasn't asking me. I would respond that the more unbalanced forms don't say that people (who happen to be Christians) cannot engage the civil realm, observe the civil/political sphere, or comment on the civil/political sphere. Nevertheless, it does prevent them from doing so as Christians, bringing Christian doctrine and specifically the Bible to bear. In other words, in the so-called R2K system, a Christian cannot comment as a Christian, only as a person. Prof. Clark is not commenting on Ben as one might talk about a particularly skilled quarterback (or simply one wearing the right jersey) but rather he appears to be bringing Biblical principles to bear on the situation (as well he should! and good for him!) This does not seem consistent with the more unbalanced views of the two kingdoms.

For example, recall that Hart wrote:

Christianity is essentially a spiritual and eternal faith, one occupied with a world to come rather than the passing and temporal affairs of this world.

(p. 12 of A Secular Faith) Frame explains, Hart "is opposed not only to the church taking political positions, but even to individual Christians claiming biblical authority for their political views." (Escondido Theology, p. 248)

Contrary to what Hart seems to think (based on his book), the Scriptures have a lot to say about the passing and temporal affairs of this world, even though this is our pilgrimage with the best life yet to come. An error of an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms is creating a dichotomy between them rather than recognizing that the civil magistrate is a minister of God who ought to be normed by the Word of the God of whom he is the minister. Another error is like to it - treating all aspects of this life the same whether the Bible has said much (for example, good laws) or little (for example, plumbing, air conditioning, or pharmacology). Yes, the Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to roll aluminum foil quite flat without making it so thin it accidentally tears. The Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to build a controlled fusion reactor. But there are oodles of teachings regarding what sort of laws are good. There are oodles of teachings on marriage and family - on the raising of children, and so forth.

-TurretinFan

Charles Hodge Against 4 Point Calvinism

From Volume 2 of his Systematic Theology (link):

S: 4. Hypothetical Redemption.

According to the common doctrine of Augustinians, as expressed an the Westminster Catechism, "God, having . . . . elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer." In opposition to this view some of the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century introduced the scheme which is known in the history of theology as the doctrine of hypothetical redemption. The principal advocate of this doctrine was Amyraut (died 1664), Professor in the French Protestant Seminary at Saumur. He taught, (1.) That the motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general. (2.) From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. (3.) God, in virtue of a decretum universale hypotheticum, offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ. (4.) All men have a natural ability to repent and believe. (5.) But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give his efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.

This scheme is sometimes designated as "universalismus hypotheticus." It was designed to take a middle ground between Augustinianism and Arminianism. It is liable to the objections which press on both systems. It does not remove the peculiar difficulties of Augustinianism, as it asserts the sovereignty of God in election. Besides, it leaves the case of the heathen out of view. They, having no knowledge of Christ, could not avail themselves of this decretum hypotheticum, and therefore must be considered as passed over by a decretum absolutum. It was against this doctrine of Amyraut and other departures from the standards of the Reformed Church that, in 1675, the "Formula Consensus Helvetica" was adopted by the churches of Switzerland. This theory of the French theologians soon passed away as far as the Reformed churches in Europe were concerned. Its advocates either returned to the old doctrine, or passed on to the more advanced system of the Arminians. In this country it has been revived and extensively adopted.

At first view it might seem a small matter whether we say that election precedes redemption or that redemption precedes election. In fact, however, it is a question of great importance. The relation of the truths of the Bible is determined by their nature. If you change their relation you must change their nature. If you regard the sun as a planet instead of as the centre of our system you must believe it to be something very different in its constitution from what it actually is. So in a scheme of thought, if you make the final cause a means, or a means the final cause, nothing but confusion can be the result. As the relation of election to redemption depends on the nature of redemption the full consideration of this question must be reserved until the work of Christ has been considered. For the present it is sufficient to say that the scheme proposed by the French theologians is liable to the following objections.

Arguments against this Scheme.

1. It supposes mutability in the divine purposes; or that the purpose of God may fail of accomplishment. According to this scheme, God, out of benevolence or philanthropy, purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son for their redemption. But seeing that such purpose could not be carried out, He determined by his efficacious grace to secure the salvation of a certain portion of the human race. This difficulty the scheme involves, however it may be stated. It cannot however be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He does not intend to effect; that He adopts means for an end which is never to be attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and power to secure the execution of his purposes. Much less can it be said of Him whose power and wisdom are infinite. If all men are not saved, God never purposed their salvation, and never devised and put into operation means designed to accomplish that end. We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God. If He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, then events correspond to his purposes; and it is against reason and Scripture to suppose that there is any contradiction or want of correspondence between what He intended and what actually occurs. The theory, therefore, which assumes that God purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son to die as a means to accomplish that end, and then seeing, or foreseeing that such end could not or would not be attained, elected a part of the race to be the subjects of efficacious grace, cannot be admitted as Scriptural.

2. The Bible clearly teaches that the work of Christ is certainly efficacious. It renders certain the attainment of the end it was designed to accomplish. It was intended to save his people, and not merely to make the salvation of all men possible. It was a real satisfaction to justice, and therefore necessarily frees from condemnation. It was a ransom paid and accepted, and therefore certainly redeems. If, therefore, equally designed for all men, it must secure the salvation of all. If designed specially for the elect, it renders their salvation certain, and therefore election precedes redemption. God, as the Westminster Catechism teaches, having elected some to eternal life, sent his Son to redeem them.

3. The Scriptures further teach that the gift of Christ secures the gift of all other saving blessings. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. vii 32.) Hence they are certainly saved for whom God delivered up his Son. The elect only are saved, and therefore He was delivered up specially for them, and consequently election must precede redemption. The relation, therefore, of redemption to election is as clearly determined by the nature of redemption as the relation of the sun to the planets is determined by the nature of the sun.

4. The Bible in numerous passages directly asserts that Christ came to redeem his people; to save them from their sins; and to bring them to God. He gave Himself for his Church; He laid down his life for his sheep. As the end precedes the means, if God sent his Son to save his people, if Christ gave Himself for his Church, then his people were selected and present to the divine mind, in the order of thought, prior to the gift of Christ.

5. If, as Paul teaches (Rom. viii. 29, 30), foreknowledge precedes predestination, and if the mission of Christ is the means of accomplishing the end of predestination, then of necessity predestination to eternal life precedes the gift of Christ. Having, as we are taught in Eph. i. 4, 5, predestinated us to the adoption of sons, God chose us before the foundation of the world, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. This is the order of the divine purposes, or the mutual relation of the truths of redemption as presented in the Scriptures.

6. The motive (so to speak) of God in sending his Son is not, as this theory assumes, general benevolence or that love of which all men are equally the objects, but that peculiar, mysterious, infinite love in which God, in giving his Son, gives Himself and all conceivable and possible good. All these points, however, as before remarked, ask for further consideration when we come to treat of the nature and design of Christ's work.

And again:

Hypothetical Universalism.

A class of theologians in the Reformed Church who did not agree with the Remonstrants against whom the decisions of the Synod of Dort, sustained by all branches of the Reformed body, were directed, were still unable to side with the great mass of their brethren. The most distinguished of these theologians were Amyraut, La Place, and Cappellus. Their views have already been briefly stated in the sections treating of mediate imputation; and of the order of decrees and of the design of redemption. These departures from the accepted doctrines of the Reformed Church produced protracted agitation, not in France only but also in Holland and Switzerland. The professors of the University of Leyden. Andreas Rivet and Frederick Spanheim, were especially prominent among the opposers of the innovations of the French theologians. The clergy of Geneva drew up a protest in the form of a Consensus of the Helvetic Churches which received symbolical authority The doctrines against which this protest was directed are, (1.) That God, out of general benevolence towards men, and not out of special love to his chosen people, determined to redeem all mankind, provided they should repent and believe on the appointed Redeemer. Hence the theory was called hypothetical universalism. (2.) That the death or work of Christ had no special reference to his own people; it rendered the salvation of no man certain, but the salvation of all men possible. (3.) As the call of the gospel is directed to all men, all have the power to repent and believe. (4.) God foreseeing that none, if left to themselves, would repent, determines of his own good pleasure to give saving grace to some and not to others. This is the principal distinguishing feature between the theory of these French theologians and of the Semi-Pelagians and Remonstrants. The former admit the sovereignty of God in election; the latter do not.

This system necessitates a thorough change in the related doctrines of the gospel. If fallen men have power to repent and believe, then original sin (subjectively considered) does not involve absolute spiritual death. If this be so, then mankind are not subject to the death threatened to Adam. Therefore, there is no immediate imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. As they derive a polluted nature from him, which is the ground of the displeasure of God, they may so far be said to share in his sin. This is mediate imputation. Again, if the death of Christ does not render certain the salvation of his people, then it was not vicarious in the proper sense of that word; nor did He die as a substitute. His satisfaction assumes of necessity the character of a general display, a didactic exhibition of truth. At least this is the logical tendency, and the actual historical consequence of the theory. Moreover, if Christ did not act as the substitute and representativc of his people, there is no ground for the imputation of his righteousness to them. The French theologians, therefore, denied that his active obedience is thus imputed to believers. The merit of his death may be said to be thus imputed as it is the ground of the forgiveness of sin. This of course destroys the idea of justification by merging it into an executive act of pardon. Moreover, the principles on which this theory is founded, require that as every other provision of the gospel is general and universal, so also the call must be. But as it is undeniable that neither the written word nor the preached gospel has extended to all men, it must be assumed that the revelation of God made in his works, in his providence, and in the constitution of man, is adequate to lead men to all the knowledge necessary to salvation; or, that the supernatural teaching and guidance of the Spirit securing such knowledge must be granted to all men. It is too obviously inconsistent and unreasonable to demand that redemption must be universal, and ability universal as the common heritage of man, and yet admit that the knowledge of that redemption and of what sinners are required to do in the exercise of their ability, is confined to comparatively few. The "Formula Consensus Helvetica," therefore, includes in its protest the doctrine of those "qui vocationem ad salutem non sola Evangelii praedicatione, sed naturae etiam ac Providentiae operibuis, citra ullum exterius praeconium expediri sentiunt," etc. [574] It is not wonderful, therefore, that this diluted form of Augustinianismn should be distasteful to the great body of the Reformed Churches. It was rejected universally except in France, where, after repeated acts of censure, it came to be tolerated.

Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on "Catholic Answers"

The show that calls itself "Catholic Answers," recently featured a Missouri Synod Lutheran caller as highlighted on a recent Dividing Line.  In response to the caller, the hosts began asking him some questions.  I wouldn't be surprised if you get these same questions from some of your Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances, particularly those who listen to "Catholic Answers."

Question 1: Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

Short Answer: John 20:31 says, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." And many other verses.

Brief Explanation: John's statement implies that a person could pick up John's gospel, read it, believe it, and receive eternal life in that way.  Moreover, John's statement at least hints at the fact that the other gospels have a similar purpose - they are written for us to read, believe, and have eternal life.

Possible Objection: But where is the only in that text?

Response: The sola or only of "Sola Scriptura" is simply a negative claim - in other words, it's saying that Scripture is unique - there's nothing else like Scripture. If you want some verses that emphasize the unique character of Scripture, those also exist.

For example, Romans 3:4 says "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, "That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.' (Psalm 51:4)"  This emphasizes the crucial distinction between God's word and mens' words.

Another example is this: 

Deuteronomy 13:1-5If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, "Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

The point to take away from that passage is that even if someone has authority that appears to be attested by working wonders, the person's message should be judged by the Scriptures (in this case, by the Pentateuch). 

Paul similarly warns the Galatians: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8)  Someone may object that "preached" could refer to the gospel Paul delivered orally.  Nevertheless, we have that gospel in written form today.

Likewise, the Bereans are commended for subjecting the apostles' own preaching to a comparison with the Scriptures: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

Question 2: Where is "Scripture interprets Scripture" in the Bible?

Short answer: 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" If that is true, then it follows that all Scripture has one divine author even if it has many human authors.

Longer answer: Indeed, we have examples of Scripture interpreting itself explicitly, such as the quotation from John 20:31, above, which provides a purpose for the book of John, and more broadly for Scripture. Other examples include the citation of Old Testament passages in the New Testament, together with explanations of what they meant or how they were fulfilled in Christ.  Indeed, sometimes the New Testament includes Jesus' own explanation of his parables.  Numerous other examples could be provided.

Rejoinder: But even if we had no answer, can the matter seriously be doubted?  Does the person asking the question really think that the Bible is either incomprehensible or should not be understood by taking one part in relation to another?  

Even the Roman Catholic "Catechism of the Catholic Church," puts it this somewhat poetic (and consequently imprecise) way (CCC 102): 

Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.

We understand that Rome wishes to deny Christians the ability to judge her doctrines by Scripture, but surely it cannot be denied that Scripture does interpret Scripture.  How else would one read it?  As just isolated statements each possibly meaning anything at all?  The very notion seems bizarre.

-TurretinFan

The Middle Name Issue Revisited (and some miscellaneous items) with Ergun Caner

Middle Name Issue
Ergun Caner apparently preached "What Worship Looks Like" at FBC Lyons on November 17, 2013. Around 20:45 into the mp3, Ergun Caner states: "My father's middle name, Mehmet, I took when he passed, it means Mohammed in Turkish." (link to mp3)

That is nice as clarification that Caner's name is not really "Ergun Mehmet Caner," as he has put on his books about Islam. One problem though: from what we can tell, it wasn't so much "when he passed" (August 25, 1999) as "after 9/11," as seen in this post (link).

Recall that Norm Geisler wrote:

The Charge that Caner has Used various Names in Publications. Dr. Caner has used “E. Michael Caner” in one book while using “Ergun Mehmet Caner” in other books. Why? His mother desired that he use Michael, a name she always wished to give him, while Dr. Caner used “Mehmet” in honor of his father, especially after his father's passing in 1999. Some have even attacked his nickname, “Butch,” which he has used since moving to the South and was a name given to him by those who had difficulty pronouncing his first name.

Always wished to?  It's his real name.  And again - "after his father's passing" may be true, but "after 9/11" would be more accurate.

Interestingly, Dr. Caner's father apparently legally changed his middle name to Mehmet from Martin back in 1980 (link to post).  I'm not sure whether the "Martin" name was simply an immigration name error, or something else.

I would like to see any evidence that Caner used "Mehmet" as his middle name before his father's passing (to justify Geisler's "especially") or before 9/11, to justify Caner's own comments.

More Creative Childhood
Ergun Caner apparently preached at the 2013 Summer Bible Conference on July 21, 2013 (link to evening video - Around 30 minutes into the presentation, Ergun Caner states: "I was in high school. And I've always been fat. There's never been a skinny picture of me." When you look at his high school yearbooks, he doesn't look fat (link) - same when you look at his childhood pictures (e.g. this).

What's even the point of making something like this up - claiming to have been a fat kid growing up?

Apparently Ergun Caner was on "Fortress of Faith" in June 2012 for a two-part series - but the audio from that appearance has apparently been removed. (link to first part)(link to second part)(another source - also apparently removed - part 1 - part 2)

An Immigration Account, a "Late in Life" conversion account, and the Middle Name again
Caner also apparently spoken in the morning session for the 2013 Summer Bible Conference.  During that session, around 32 minutes into the recording, Caner alleged: "152 miles almost directly west of here, is where - when we first came to America - we went to the mosque, there in Toledo." (compare here and here)

Around 34:30 "I got saved, almost in college.  A high school boy, going into college."
Around 35:00 "Got saved late in life."

I wouldn't usually think of high school as "late in life," but perhaps that's just me.

Around 42:30 "Ergun Mehmet Caner - Ergun, Mehmet, that's my father's middle name and I took it upon his passing ..."

See the discussion above regarding the middle name.

Around 53:30 "I was raised to hate you."

I would be interested if anyone who went to that particular mosque can confirm that they taught Muslims to "hate" Christians.

Around 53:45 "the five pillars: Abinadab, Salat, Zakat, Swan, Haj, they would do the Kalimah"

"Abinadab" is someone who had possession of the ark of the covenant for a while in the Old Testament.  It's not one of the five pillars.

Around 54:15 "Even those who aren't violent, they know what jihad means, jihad al-asghar - they know what it means and 134 miles from right here, that's what I was taught."

Is Caner seriously suggesting he was taught physical warfare at the mosque in Columbus?

Around 57:00 "Three and a half years - almost four years - he kept coming. Freshman year, Sophomore Year, Junior Year, at Gahanna Lincoln.

It looks like Caner is saying that he was saved midway through his senior year - basically the fall semester of 1983.  In other places, he has alleged it was

Around 69:00 "A year later, Williamsburg, Kentucky - going to college, trying to study the Bible - both my brothers get saved.  All three - three boys raised as devout Sunni Muslims. Three boys, sons of Acar Mehmet Caner, three boys come to America -- Erdem and I were already born, Emir was born here -- three boys come here to be Islamic missionaries to you - to build mosques."

If Ergun was saved his junior year, then one year later he was still in high school.  If Ergun was saved his senior year, he wasn't saved in 1982, but in 1983-84.  And to top it all off, Emir claims he himself was saved in 1982.

-TurretinFan

iTBN Contributions - Ergun Caner

For a full list of iTBN appearances, see the following link (Link). Apparently, Dr. Ergun Caner was a guest on a series of episodes of "The King is Coming," with Dr. Ed Hindson, and also on a previous show hosted by Pastor Jentezen Franklin. The most disappointing comments are from that last show, but I've posted a short synopsis, below.

Buffalo Creek Baptist Church - Easter 2013

Apparently, on Easter 2013, Ergun Caner spoke at the Buffalo Creek Baptist Church (link to mp3). It was interesting to hear the testimonial parts of his message:

(all times are approximate)

(1:10) "To be very honest, again - for those who are visitors, I am Turkish, born in Sweden, raised as a Muslim, Christian. Born-again, blood-bought, believer in Jesus Christ. And having come from Islam to Christianity, you can imagine the trips to Israel are unique."

(2:10) "I didn't get saved until later in life. I was in high school, getting ready to go into college: devout, practicing Muslim. Oldest son of three, all three boys are now preachers of the gospel. All three raised as Sunni muslims - all three with a father that built mosques."

(5:30) "And then to participate in the hunt? I'm all about it. Yeah, you're eighteen years old, but it's my first one! I'll kick a grandma through a moving fan, to get an egg."

From what we can tell, Caner was saved around 15 or 16. How that's "later in life" or "eighteen years old," I don't know.

(25:30) "You want to know what kind of PhD I am? I got three masters degrees, and a PhD, and when I went to Criswell College, I had one goal - not a cowboy's game, not a ranger's game, not the dallas crew - I wanted to go to the sportatorium. I wanted to see a Von Erich claw. So, I love my rasslin'."

Technically, I believe he has a D. Theol. The point that he loves his wrestling is taken, however.

Caner vs. Driscoll - Another Comparison

In an apparently removed article (available at the moment, here), John B. Carpenter made a comparison between Mark Driscoll's alleged plagiarism and Ergun Caner's alleged autobiographical embellishment. I wonder what Dr. Carpenter would have done if he had seen the translation of Bin Ladin's 1998 fatwa provided the Federation of American Scientists (link) with the translation provided in the Caner brothers' papers and books:

1. "The Doctrine of Jihad in the Islamic Hadith" presented at the Evangelical Theological Society on November 15, 2001 (link to pdf of paper)
2. "The Doctrine of Jihad in the Islamic Hadith" published in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT) Volume 8, Number 1 (Spring 2004)(link)
3. "Unveiling Islam" published by Kregel Publications, (C) 2002, Chapter 13, pp. 181-84 (link to partial preview) (See note 1, p. 198, "Translation and emphasis by the authors of this book.")
4. "Christian Jihad" published by Kregel Publications, (C) 2004, Appendix B, pp. 228-232 (link to partial preview)

The two texts are very similar. One difference is that in quotations from the Koran, the FAS.org version uses KJV-style English - for example, the FAS.org version states (emphasis added by me):

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
...
Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

By contrast the Caner brothers' version uses contemporary English in most cases. However, in two cases, the Caner brothers' version lapses into KJV-style English (emphasis again, is mine):

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah, “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed—women and children, whose cry is—‘Allah rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’”
...
Almighty Allah said “O you who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calls you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah comes between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom you shall all be gathered.”

Almighty Allah also says “O you who believe, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling so heavily to the earth! Do you prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless you go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him you would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things.”

You will notice a few other small differences, like "Our Lord" is replaced by "Allah," but the most frequent change in this section is between the KJV-style English and modern English, except those two words "thee" and "hath," which remain the same.  The reader can decide for himself how much weight to give to this evidence, but it's hard for me to think of any strong reason why a translator working from the Arabic would use "thee" and "hath" in those two places, without using any other KJV-style English.

Moreover, Ergun Caner is aware of the FAS.org translation. In his e-mail correspondence "debate" with Nadir Ahmed in 2005-06, Dr. Caner referred to this very translation (link to "debate").

Furthermore, recall that according to Norman Geisler:

The Charge that He Could Speak Arabic When He Can’t.—He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur’an and speak it in prayer.

(source).

Incidentally, in both the paper and in "Unveiling Islam," the Caners refer to the five men who signed the fatwa as "five Islamic caliphates."  The term "caliphate" refers to the thing ruled by a caliph -  much like "kingdom" is that which is ruled by a king.  Additionally, the five men weren't and aren't caliphs. If the authors didn't properly understand the term "caliphate," did they really translate the fatwa themselves and arrive at a version that is so similar to the FAS.org version?  If so, it was quite a remarkable feat.

I wonder if any of Ergun Caner's supporters have further light to shed on this question of whether the translation in Caner's books and papers is actually his own, his brother's, or some combination thereof.

-TurretinFan

Some Responses to Steven Avery's and Chris Pinto/NOTR's Counterpoints

In the comment box on my previous post (link), Steven Avery has provided some counter-points to the points I raised regarding the debate between James White and Chris Pinto. Mr. Avery has also quoted some material that he attributes to Chris Pinto/ Noise of Thunder Radio.

Steven Avery said: "If he was to comment on one thing right now, I would be all ears as to his thoughts about the James White papyri blunder. Since that was, in real terms, the James White big chief argument." Actually, I disagree. The big chief argument was the fact that the codex was not the work of a single scribe, but of multiple distinguishable scribes. And the second was like unto it - there were numerous hands (from different centuries) that corrected manuscript. Either of these arguments alone would sink Mr. Pinto's ship.

However, let me respond to what Steven Avery (SA) and Chris Pinto/Noise of Thunder Radio (NOTR) has said (the NOTR material comes to me via SA, so I have hopefully correctly attributed the parts to NOTR that belong to him).

Me: 3) There are no known examplars that could have been the source for Codex Sinaiticus."
SA:

Chris Pinto is a documentarian, he raises the historical issues missed (essentially ignored by James White) and then hopes they get hashed out properly, and he will join in the studies. Chris did mention the ancient Syriac Codex, but he was still somewhat of a beginner on the details about the Vaticanus collations and the textual interrelationships, the question of alexandrian mss on Mt. Athos, and the complexities of what happened to the NT until it arose pristine in 1859.

Once you look at all the details, you see that the source question is interesting (the biggest question is the source for the unique Sinaiticus blunders) but not an especially strong point contra the idea of Sinaiticus not being an authentic 4th century ms. Sinaiticus has major problems in delivery whether 4th century 6th century (Hilgenfeld), 19th century or some combinations thereof, where the NT was especially subject to "care".

a) The debate over whether manuscript should be dated to the 6th century rather than the 4th century is a different debate. The issue of exemplars is totally irrelevant to the 4th/6th century debate.
b) Yes, Simonides/Chris mentioned an "ancient Syriac Codex," but they have not produced such a codex. So, as I said, there are no known exemplars.
NOTR:

That is, no examplars known by Dr. White. During the debate, White admitted that he has not examined the manuscripts that were in Simonides’ possession, and was not even fully aware of what they were. In his argument, he overlooked three of the MSS. entirely. He was also unaware that there are many manuscripts on Mt. Athos today that have never been catalogued. His assertion was mere speculation based on his own limited knowledge.

a) There are no examplars known to anyone - not to Chris Pinto, not to any living person.
b) Simonides' claim to have collated his primary text with three additional manuscripts only makes his story *less* credible. I'm not sure why NOTR has so much trouble understanding this point. Not only does trying to collate three manuscripts dramatically increase the time needed to produce the codex, it also makes it less likely that the exemplars would all be lost.
c) Likewise, identifying that Simonides claimed he had manuscripts is not equivalent to identifying what manuscripts he could have used.
d) NOTR's argument seems to be that there might possibly be an as-yet-unknown manuscript that could be the exemplar. That argument is simply wishful thinking.
SA: "This is true, and is largely the ignorance of James White, in the area that is supposed to be his bailiwick. And it is best combined with what I shared above, which takes the more affirmative sense of what could have been used."
I answer: Yes, every person who knows about NT manuscripts is going to be "ignorant" of manuscripts that do not exist. Calling that "the ignorance of James White" is a strange way of putting it - but yes, he's unaware of non-existent manuscripts.

Me: 6) The amount of time necessary for collating multiple manuscripts of the entire Bible (plus some apocrypha) would have been prohibitive in the timeline proposed by Simonides.
SA:

There is no collation problem, all of that is bogus. e.g. The Griesbach NT, as pointed out by James Snapp, was out and could easily be used as a starting point. Collation could be somewhat ad hoc as well. All of this collation timing point was based on an error of James White that what would be required was the type of Stephanus collation of multiple manuscripts with markings, etc. This was all a straw man complaint where James White fantasized a complex scenario of collation creation, and then complained that his own complex scenario might take too much time.

Beyond all that, the whole question of collation and creation is one area where Simonides and Kallinikos have to be studied with all parts together, including Tischendorf mutilating and tampering with the mss and the distinctions of the NT ms. Beyond that, we should allow that if the SImonides involvement was not all pristine, to make a gift to the tsar, if there were some shady elements involved, the creation story would be the fudgiest element. That should not surprise us much, Tischendorf was a bald-faced liar about the events of those years and Uspensky was considered, like Tischendorf, as one who purloined manuscripts. It was the best of time, it was the worst of times.

Actually, Simonides is the one who claimed he produced his manuscript by a process of collation. Of course, if you're throwing out Simonides' claims then we are in agreement.

NOTR:

While Dr. White raised the issue, he never defined the “timeline proposed by Simonides.” He simply claimed it was prohibitive, but gave no explanation as to why.
In reality, Simonides claimed that the work happened over a period of 20 months from 1839-1841. By comparison, Desiderius
Erasmus famously completed his first edition Greek New Testament in less than half that time. He wrote: “I have got through six years work in eight months.” The first edition of Erasmus is especially known for its remarkable number of errors. This is the same characteristic of Codex Sinaiticus. If the work was done hastily by Simonides and his uncle, this would at least partly explain why it has so many corrections.
As a footnote, the number of reported “corrections” in the manuscript have changed since it was first discovered. The first number given was 8,000 corrections in 1862. That number later jumped to 14,800, as reported by Tischendorf. Today, the British Library reports a total of some 23,000 corrections. To understand where the all corrections came from, it would need to be understood why they have so dramatically increased over the past 150 years.

a) Erasmus was one of the brightest minds of his generation. It's hardly reasonable to compare his speed with that of someone who was primarily known for his good penmanship.
b) Similarly, Erasmus was about 40 and seriously trained by that point. By contrast, Simonides was a teenager.
c) Moreover, Erasmus was focused on the New Testament only, whereas Codex Sinaiticus contains OT, OT Apocrypha, NT, and NT apocrypha.
d) Additionally, except where Erasmus back-translated from Latin, Erasmus was working from Greek manuscripts only. By contrast, Simonides claimed to be working from both Greek and Syriac.
e) The codex may have been composed in haste in the 4th century. However, the more that there is an appeal to haste, the less likely that the work can be a nuanced forgery. It's hard to simulate a 4th century scribe - it's harder yet to do so in haste (much less multiple distinguishable scribes).
f) Regarding the "footnote," all that has increased is the reported number. The reason for such an increase is most obviously the increased amount careful study of the manuscript over the years.

SA:

I would more bluntly say that the whole collation question as raised by James White was simply a red herring, where he simply assumed his own complex machinations. The corrections issue discussed by NOTR is interesting, and can be added to a long list of puzzling questions as to how this ms. has developed. Read the CSP discussions of ink and parchment for other puzzles.

This is answered above.

SA:

As for Mt. Athos mss. James White astutely pointed out that Codex Ψ Psi 044 (giving the three notations) is a Mt. Athos sourced Alexandrian ms. The idea that all mss on Mt. Athos were Byzantine was a James White fabrication as well.

Dr. White did not say (or if he did, he mispoke) that there are no manuscripts with Alexandrian readings in the Athos monestary libraries.

Codex Athous Lavrensis (aka Ψ/044) is a mixed text. Some portions are "Alexandrian," some are Byzantine (see much more detail here).
Codex Athous Dionysiou (Ω Omega 045, using your notation method) is also a codex from Athos, which has some Alexandrian readings.
Also, Codex Athous Pantokratoros (051) is a codex from Athous with an eclectic text.
Codex Coislinianus (H^p or 015) is a generally Alexandrian ms. on Athos.
Uncial 050 is also a mixed text on Athos.

-TurretinFan

"Rip the Roof Off" - Ergun Caner 2010

Some time in 2010, Dr. Caner preached a sermon titled "Rip the Roof Off," at Bell Shoals. One interesting thing about this sermon is that it appears to be more like the cleaned up testimony we will see in some of the post-2010 sermons, but the description posted with the video still reflects the pre-2010 testimony. The description currently states:

Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey, Ergun Caner became a Christian shortly before entering college. Today, he serves as president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in 13 countries and 35 states. Ergun lives in Lynchburg with his wife, Jill, and two sons.

We have searched hard but haven't found actual debates. Dr. Caner was raised, as far as we can tell, in Ohio, not Turkey.

(3:15) "Seven miles down the road, they called Steven Rummage. I've had the blessing of following him, of seeing God use him, and let me say it publicly - and you're recording - stealing every sermon he has ever preached. Unashamedly. I even use the illustrations and pretend they're mine."

I assume Caner was joking in the above, but it does seem a little troubling, in view of some of the illustrations we've considered in his sermons

(4:00) "I'm a Turkish, immigrant, and I discovered that I'm a Yankee - because that's what her daddy told me, with an adjective. Jill's daddy - neighboring county - his people are from Johnston County, NC, specifically he's from Possum Kill, NC. So, you can imagine how thrilled he was, when the towelhead showed up at the door to date his daughter. My full name is Ergun Mehmet Caner."

Caner has listed his "full name" a number of different ways, but "Michael" seems to be his legal middle name, based on what we've seen in official records.

(6:00) "I didn't get saved until later in life. I wasn't raised in church. I wasn't raised with AWANA, RAs, GAs, WMU - didn't know none of that. Didn't have Sunday school; didn't have vacation bible school. None of it. Didn't go to church camp until after my conversion. And so, I got saved in Columbus, OH. My family had moved to America, and from America to central Ohio, Gahanna specifically, where I graduated Gahanna Lincoln High School, 1984. I learned English, there. Couldn't find a college, because I got called to preach, lost my family, lost everyone, lost everything I had. Sent a letter to all these colleges, because I wanted to study the Bible. Didn't know that I was called to ministry, didn't quite understand that concept. All I knew, is that I wanted to study the Bible. And I wanted to go to Bible school, but I didn't have a cent to my name. Finally, found a school in Kentucky, Williamsburg, KY, that would have me. And so I found myself about a year, eight months, after my conversion, in Kentucky, where I had to re-learn English."

I suppose Caner did learn English here in America - considering he learned to talk in America.

Caner claims to have "lost my family, lost everyone, lost everything I had." On the other hand, it seems that perhaps Caner was simply disowned by his non-custodial father. That's a pretty big deal and very sad for Caner, but if that's all that happened, then that's not "everyone" and "everything."

(32:20) "You know the reason I'm here is because one kid was my warrior. I came to America as a Muslim, moved to Columbus, OH, as a Muslim, my father built mosques, until the day he died, as an architect. I'm the oldest of three sons. I should be doing what my father did. But one boy - one boy - for four years - one boy - one high school kid wouldn't shut up."

I have no idea why Caner is so insistent on making it "four years." He graduated (as he stated above) in 1984. He apparently professed faith some time in 1982 or so. Indeed, that 1982 date seems consistent with claim to be going off to college about one year and eight months later.

Also, saying he "came as a Muslim" seems a little strange, since most 2-3 year olds are too young even to say the Shahada, much less be meaningfully Muslim.

(33:00) "He nagged me, he begged me, he pleaded with me, he did everything he could until finally I decided I was going to give in. And I said, 'You know what? I'll go with you to church if you come with me to the mosque.' And he came. Who's got that kind of guts. Most of us, if we were trained in any way, we knock on the door, if they slam the door in our face, we go, 'Huh- he must not be elect.' And we mark him off our list."

Do people really do that? That looks like a caricature of Calvinists, but not like anyone I've ever run into.

(35:50) "In 1995, my grandmama got saved. Age of 93, at Wood Baptist Church in Wood, NC, where she is buried. This little woman, who never learned English, is buried around a bunch of people who can't speak it. But do you know why she's buried there? Because that's where she met her Lord. Because that's where somebody shared the gospel with her. That's where sweet old ladies would blow up versions of Scripture so she could read it in her tongue. Where they loved on her."

Interesting that Caner does not mention that her tongue was Swedish.

(all times are approximate)

Mohler/Caner Panel at SBTS

Someone recently pointed me to audio from a panel at SBTS from several years ago - apparently November 14, 2003, where Mohler and Ergun Caner were speaking about Islam.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of the audio may be missing, as some of the files end a little abruptly. Here are the links: (part 1)(part 2)(part 3)(part 4)

In part 2, Caner speaks. His comments include:

"I was a Muslim for 20 years." (If he was converted in 1982, as he has said, he was either 15 or 16 when he became a Christian.)

"My father was an ulema - a scholar, a hadithic scholar, more particularly." (Elsewhere, he claims his father was an architect. Moreover, "ulema" is a plural noun.)

"Everywhere I lived, before we came to America, we were the majority. I come to America, and I have to explain to you, from the Islamic mindset, it is tough, moving to your culture. Because we go from being a majority to all of a sudden becoming a minority and you guys have some annoying commercials and annoying practices. Every time I turned on the television it was another Christmas commercial another thing - I constantly wondered, under this aegis of Christian communication, what did a rabbit have to do with Easter? and what did trees have to do with Christmas? ... " (According to the most recent press release, Caner was 2 or 3 years old when he came to America, having been born in Sweden.)

"I have never, ever - in 41 debates - ever heard one Muslim ever make this statement. As a matter of fact, at a debate at the University of North Texas, I was getting hammered - I was getting beat up like a husband at a Beth Moore conference or something, because question after question after question, coming at me, and the media was hammering me with this - about come back to this group hug kind of thing - and finally I turned to the imam who was with me and I said, 'Abi, may I ask you a question,' he said 'of course,' 'do you believe Allah and Jehovah are the same God,' he said, 'Oh, of course not, this is ridiculous.'" (We cannot find any record of this debate (or the 40 other alleged debates), despite the alleged presence of media. We cannot find this imam. Moreover, the Koran claims that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same god.)

"It's not the same god, guys. In fact, any time I come to this moment in this debate where they say it is, I say 'great, so Allah is triune?'" (Which debate was this? We have been looking and have not found any such debate.)

In part 4, Caner speaks again. His comments include:

"Everything I learned about our country - everything I ever learned about America - I learned by American television, before I came here. For instance, Andy Griffith. I would watch everything on Andy Griffith - so I thought all of America was Mayberry. And I moved to Brooklyn, NY." (Again, remember that according to most recent press release, Caner came to America when he was 2-3 years old.)

"I don't wear my laundry on my head. We are not dark. My first job was not a convenience store."

"I believed you guys hated me."

"Shabir Ally, when he and I do debate, he will say, 'you will speak very kindly about Mohammed,' and I said, 'as long as you do so about Jesus. You attack Jesus, I'm going after Mohammed.' And so he said, that's what I did, and as soon as he did [some describes his gestures as "stone cold Steve Austin"]." (There is no record of Caner debating Shabir Ally, and when Dr. White asked Shabir about this, he is reported to have responded that he had not even met Caner.)

"We were taught as children that the Jews drank the blood of our little Palestinian children. I mean - we were told - we were raised with a tangible, visceral hatred for Israel."

"This idea of coexisting peacefully with Israel is a silly notion for anyone who knows Arabic. When Arafat in Arabic on Al-Jazeera, he will say '[apparently some faux Arabic gibberish] we will push them into the Mediterranean,' and then turns around in English and he says, 'We want peace.'" (I would be interested in any Arabic speakers confirming whether the apparent gibberish is really gibberish, or actually something in Arabic. It seems far too short to be the equivalent of "we will push them into the Mediterranean."

"As far as the translation of the Koran, they believe, and we were taught, that you must know Arabic to understand the Koran completely, however, they work against us by translating the Koran into every language. The one I use up here is by Yusuf Ali, which the Saudi Government paid for back in the 1940's and they still use it. It's like the Ryrie Study Bible, so to speak, because it comes with all these prodigious notes at the bottom." (It's interesting to see that Caner acknowledges relying on a translation of the Koran here.)

"You gather together, for the recitation of the first Surah of the Koran, five times a day. Either you have your prayer rug in your closet, or you have it in your locker at school, or in our case, you would go to the mosque if you lived close enough." (Interesting to see the locker story mentioned here.)

"The Imam gives a brief Tawhid, um Talib, the Talib is the sermon, but sometimes its just a basic lecture." (The name for the sermon at the mosque is the Khutbah, which is delivered by the khatib.

"He is usually trained somewhere else, in a madrassa, he has an ulema, umm - err - he has many ulema, uh ulim, he has a couple of muezzin who do the call to prayer ..." (As mentioned above, "ulema" is plural, and the singular of that is "alim.")

"I would venture to say that a large number of Muslims living in America were shocked by 9-11. I say that because we know the doctrines especially those of us that are first generation immigrants, but here in America that's precisely what they remained. Jihad - the concepts of Jihad - remained doctrine, theology, Khitab-ology, if you may use the term. For those of us from the other world, it's more than just doctrine, it's ethic. We learn to live with jihad. You see a bombing at 8 a.m. and by 2 p.m. you're back to work." (Caner was raised in America, as mentioned above.)

"I've spent the last 17 years of my life totally devoted to systematic theology and studying church history, but I would go around to churches and speak and talk about reaching Muslims with the gospel. And for the most part, churches were very gracious, very accepting. They would pat me on the head and send me out the door and say, 'isn't that interesting.' And then four planes fly, and then thousands of people get in the backs of pick up trucks and drive to Baghdad from Aman Jordan for the singular honor of dying in the cause against America. And people listen." (It is interesting to see what we can find about Caner's pre-9/11 testimony, which was discussed at this link.)

Chris Pinto vs. James White - Debate Summarized

The Chris Pinto vs. James White debate on whether Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery can be boiled down to a few considerations.

1) Constantine Simonides claimed that he wrote the document based on collating pre-existing manuscripts, and that his uncle corrected the document.

Both sides agree that he so claimed. Dr. White demonstrated that these claims are essentially impossible, as explained below.

2) The most sympathetic source for Simonides says that Simonides was not a truthful person.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto did not dispute it except to say that this source was not the only supportive source and that the source himself says Simonides did not always lie.

3) There are no known examplars that could have been the source for Codex Sinaiticus.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto's response was to point out that the source(s) could be as-yet-unknown manuscripts on Mt. Athos.

4) Codex Sinaiticus was written by several different, distinguishable scribes (as evidenced by different handwriting, different style of abbreviations, and different accuracy of work).

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it.

5) Codex Sinaiticus has corrections by multiple different correctors.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it except to say that two other men (a monk and a scribe) may have been involved in the corrections.

6) The amount of time necessary for collating multiple manuscripts of the entire Bible (plus some apocrypha) would have been prohibitive in the timeline proposed by Simonides.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto responded that possibly his uncle started on the project years before Simonides began.

Additional notes:

1. Regarding the Mt. Athos manuscripts, there is an on-going digitization project (link). At one point, Mr. Pinto alleges that the one way to resolve the mystery was to explore the Mt. Athos library for manuscripts corresponding to Simonides' claims. He won't be able to stand behind that argument from ignorance forever.

2. Simonides himself states that the collation began after Simonides himself joined the project, as demonstrated by Dr. White. So, although the uncle allegedly had corrected the other manuscripts in advance, the collation project had not been done in advance, according to the primary source for Mr. Pinto's theory.

Conclusion

The fact that the manuscript was written by several different scribes and was corrected by numerous additional hands makes it impossible for Simonides' story to be true. The necessary hypothesis would be that Simonides deliberately altered his handwriting several different times during the writing of the manuscript to give the impression of different scribes. Such a hypothesis is simply implausible - there is no reason for Simonides to do this for the purpose of creating a text for the Tsar (as he claimed).

The fact that collation of documents takes an enormous amount of time, especially when one of the documents is not in the base language (allegedly one of the manuscripts was a Syriac manuscript), also weighs against Simonides claim. While it might be conceivable that such a collation could take place, the necessary time and training for such a collation to be undertaken are simply not there.

The fact that the supposed exemplars of Sinaiticus do not produce the unique readings of Sinaiticus and the fact that some of these unique readings are found in later discovered papyri also weighs against Simonides' claim.

In view of these facts, it's hard to see how anyone could come to any other conclusion than that Simonides was not the scribe of Sinaiticus, whether or not Simonides actually did create a manuscript intended for the Tsar.

-TurretinFan

Evangelii Gaudium - the BBC Has Overstated the Pope's Liberal Leanings

BBC News has the headline: "Pope Francis calls for power to move away from Vatican" and the opening line: "Pope Francis has called for power in the Catholic Church to be devolved away from the Vatican, in the first major work he has written in the role."

The document in question, Evangelii Gaudium ("Gospel's Joy") purports to be an apostolic exhortation. The document does state, at section 32, "Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach." I cannot find anywhere in the document the idea of actually removing power from the Vatican. There are several favorably mentions of the Second Vatican Council, but nothing opposing ultramontanism even to the extent that the Second Vatican Council attempted.

There are some other interesting aspects to the document. For example, it was interesting to see Garry Wills' point about the power of the ministerial priesthood arising from the Eucharist. Section 104 states: "Its [the ministerial priesthood's] key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people." Wills would, I think, respond that the power to administer the Eucharist naturally progresses into a power of domination, particularly when the power is discretionary.

Sections 147 and 148 are also interesting in terms of their relationship to exegesis:

147. First of all, we need to be sure that we understand the meaning of the words we read. I want to insist here on something which may seem obvious, but which is not always taken into account: the biblical text which we study is two or three thousand years old; its language is very different from that which we speak today. Even if we think we understand the words translated into our own language, this does not mean that we correctly understand what the sacred author wished to say. The different tools provided by literary analysis are well known: attention to words which are repeated or emphasized, recognition of the structure and specific movement of a text, consideration of the role played by the different characters, and so forth. But our own aim is not to understand every little detail of a text; our most important goal is to discover its principal message, the message which gives structure and unity to the text. If the preacher does not make this effort, his preaching will quite likely have neither unity nor order; what he has to say will be a mere accumulation of various disjointed ideas incapable of inspiring others. The central message is what the author primarily wanted to communicate; this calls for recognizing not only the author’s ideas but the effect which he wanted to produce. If a text was written to console, it should not be used to correct errors; if it was written as an exhortation, it should not be employed to teach doctrine; if it was written to teach something about God, it should not be used to expound various theological opinions; if it was written as a summons to praise or missionary outreach, let us not use it to talk about the latest news.

148. Certainly, to understand properly the meaning of the central message of a text we need to relate it to the teaching of the entire Bible as handed on by the Church. This is an important principle of biblical interpretation which recognizes that the Holy Spirit has inspired not just a part of the Bible, but the Bible as a whole, and that in some areas people have grown in their understanding of God’s will on the basis of their personal experience. It also prevents erroneous or partial interpretations which would contradict other teachings of the same Scriptures. But it does not mean that we can weaken the distinct and specific emphasis of a text which we are called to preach. One of the defects of a tedious and ineffectual preaching is precisely its inability to transmit the intrinsic power of the text which has been proclaimed.

It is interesting to hear Francis' comments. He seems to be acknowledging that literary analysis is legitimate for figuring out the meaning of the text in section 147. In section 148, Francis is careful to add the qualifier "as handed on by the Church" (presumably modifying "teaching" not "Bible"). Still, fundamentally Francis seems to be recognizing that while people can misunderstand the text, they can use literary analysis to figure out what it means. This means that even if a "church" is helpful in analyzing the text, it is not necessary -- the text has intrinsic power and self-demonstrating meaning.

Section 22 similarly acknowledges the superior power of the word to the church:

22. God’s word is unpredictable in its power. The Gospel speaks of a seed which, once sown, grows by itself, even as the farmer sleeps (Mk 4:26-29). The Church has to accept this unruly freedom of the word, which accomplishes what it wills in ways that surpass our calculations and ways of thinking.

It's great for Francis to make these concessions, and it helps to undermine the traditional error of Roman Catholicism in treating "the Church" as a necessary gatekeeper and mouthpiece for the Word.

The RC pope may not be as liberal as the BBC portrays him, but he expresses a position a lot closer to "Protestantism" than some of his predecessors.

-TurretinFan

Keep it Simple: STUPID

TULIP is a great acronym for the doctrines of grace. But it's not very American. Here's another that may be easier to recall, next time people tell you that election, predestination, or Calvinism is "stupid." You can respond, yes:

Sovereignty: God is in charge - we are not. All things happen according to his foreordinate counsel - from the death of Christ to the last hair on our heads.
Total depravity: In Adam we fell and our natures became corrupt, so that we do not obey the law of God and are not able to.
Unconditional election: God has chosen some of humanity for himself, based only on himself and his love - not based on us and our merit.
Perseverance of the saints: God will finish the work of salvation that he begins at justification, saving to the uttermost those who approach Him in faith.
Irresistible grace: God's grace acts directly to convert the heart, change the will, and make a new creature, who then responds. God's grace does not have to wait for the creature's will, in order to effect a change.
Definite atonement: Christ's death was particularly intended to bring about the salvation of the elect: his sheep - those that the Father gave him out of the world.

-TurretinFan