My posts are timely, if nothing else. Back in 1987, at the Bayview Baptist Church, Karl Keating engaged in a debate against Peter Ruckman. Keating hasn't done a lot of debates since then (that I can find a record of, at any rate), so perhaps despite the passage of 24 years, this reply will still be deemed timely.
After some pleasantries, Keating begins his presentation with an argument regarding inspiration. He asks the question: "How do you know that the Bible is inspired?" He then offers several options and tries to knock them down. He identifies the following as inadequate reasons:
1. Cultural Reasons
2. Family Tradition
3. Inspirational - It Moves Me
4. The Bible's Own Claim to Inspiration
5. The Holy Spirit Tells Me So
Before we get to Keating's proposed alternative to these allegedly inadequate reasons, let's consider his five "inadequate reasons." The first three reasons look a lot like straw men. Maybe someone somewhere thinks that the Bible is inspired because it is inspirational, or because their family told them so, or because society deems the Bible to be important. These, however, are hardly very serious arguments.
Exactly the opposite is the case for numbers 4 and 5. The ideas that the Bible proclaims its own inspiration (and indeed it does) and that the Holy Spirit confirms that inspiration to us (and He does) are actually the historic Reformed and "Protestant" position on the subject.
Keating claims that these are "inadequate." Consider the implication, though. The implication is that even if God himself tells you that the Bible is inspired, that's not a sufficient basis upon which to believe that the Bible is inspired. That implication borders on blasphemous. What could be more sufficient as a basis than that the Bible claims inspiration and that the Holy Spirit confirms it? Of course, there cannot be - but before we proclaim that dogmatically, let's see if Keating has located something better.
Keating's alternative is to provide his "spiral argument" (which I've previously critiqued here).
The steps he proposes are as follows:
1. Look at the Bible as though it were a non-inspired book.
2. Discover the Bible's historical reliability.
3. Discover that Jesus said he would found a church.
4. Conclude that the church must have the gift of infallibility.
5. Conclude that the church must have the look of the Roman church.
6. When Rome tells us that the Bible is inspired, we can know that it is inspired, because the church is infallible.
Keating calls this his spiral argument, but that may just be a distraction. In addition to the question of circularity, there are at least two other problems.
First, we can adopt his (1) and (2) and then discover that Paul was a true Apostle of Christ and explicitly taught the inspiration of Scripture. There's no need to go to (3), much less to the rest of the series.
Second, even if we go to (3), there's no teaching in the Scriptures that the church is or will be infallible, or even that "the church" will be in a position to speak as "the church." There's nothing about the church (as described by Jesus during his earthly ministry, or otherwise throughout Scripture) that requires the church to be infallible. Therefore, there is nothing to get us from (3) to (4).
To those two strong points, we could also add a weak third point, namely that (5) is likewise easily rejected. The Roman church doesn't look like the Apostolic church as described in the New Testament. It doesn't have a plurality of elders in every city. It has a limited priesthood where the New Testament church had a universal priesthood. Most significantly, it has a papacy, whereas the only head of the Apostolic church is Christ.
I call this point weak, because if you have already concluded that "the church" must be infallible, you've conceded a point that you should not. Indeed, on that hypothesis you would have nowhere to go - because there are no churches that look like the Apostolic church and also claim to be infallible (to my knowledge - at least).
- TurretinFan
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Sunday, January 08, 2012
What Should be Spent on Wine and Gambling?
Others have noted that there is inconsistency in the Koran regarding alcohol. One of these passages comes from Surah 2. The particular ayah is 219
219. They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-
The usual point is that here there is no command toward total abstinence, and there is an indication that there is some profit in them. That is, they are not simply sin. There is another point that can be made, though. Suppose we ask how much should be spent on wine and gambling? This ayah seems to indicate that the answer that should be given by Muslims is "Your disposable income" (that is, what you have beyond what you need).
In analyzing this point, of course, one has to assume that the context interprets the text -- an assumption that is not necessarily valid. We know, for example, that order of the ayat in the Koran is not the order in which the ayat were allegedly revealed to Mohammed.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid making the sentence (They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs.") a floating maxim, we need to try to interpret it contextually. After all, the object of this spending is not identified in the sentence itself and so need to be supplied from the context. There are basically two options for context. Context precedent and context subsequent. Context precedent suggests that the Koran is talking about spending on wine and gambling. This approach makes sense, particularly because the very next sentence alleges perspicuity. ("Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-(Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter.")
Some may point out that "They ask thee..." may introduce a subject change. After all, in the next Ayah, we see this:
Notice that "They ask thee concerning orphans ..." seems to introduce a new topic. Yet this is not a rigid rule in the Koran, even in this Surah. For example, only a few ayat earlier, the Koran states:
Notice that here there is a shift from discussing spending on charity to fighting. Note in particular that "They ask thee concerning fighting ..." does not introduce a new topic. It provides a specific detail about the immediately preceding topic. Moreover, notice that the new topic of fighting was introduced without the use of "They ask ... ."
Others may point out that in this Surah, spending often refers to charitable or devotional spending. For example:
This larger context certainly might seem to lend credibility to the idea that spending is not spending on wine and gambling, but on charity. On the other hand, 215 already answered the question about what should be spent on charity. So, interpreting 219 as referring to spending on charity seems to make it redundant with 215.
Moreover, there is another pattern that emerges from a study of this Surah.
The expression "Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men" is introduced to wrap up one topic and move on to a different topic in 187. Then a similar expression is used in a similar way in 221 and then again in 242 and 266.
A similar approach is also used in 3:103, Surah 4 ends in that way, and 5:89 uses the expression to separate a discussion on how to cure the moral damage from breaking an oath from a discussion on gambling and drinking.
Specifically:
Of course, the above understanding isn't the understanding of the Sunni. They don't interpret 2:219 as suggesting that people should spend only their disposable income on wine and gambling. They likewise are reluctant to see "abomination of Satan's handwork" (5:90) as being in conflict with "some profit" (2:219). That isn't their view of the Koran, and their scholars do not (to my knowledge) agree with my analysis above.
But the Koran calls itself the "Qur'an that makes things clear" (15:1) and claims "We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe." (15:64)
-TurretinFan
219. They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-
The usual point is that here there is no command toward total abstinence, and there is an indication that there is some profit in them. That is, they are not simply sin. There is another point that can be made, though. Suppose we ask how much should be spent on wine and gambling? This ayah seems to indicate that the answer that should be given by Muslims is "Your disposable income" (that is, what you have beyond what you need).
In analyzing this point, of course, one has to assume that the context interprets the text -- an assumption that is not necessarily valid. We know, for example, that order of the ayat in the Koran is not the order in which the ayat were allegedly revealed to Mohammed.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid making the sentence (They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs.") a floating maxim, we need to try to interpret it contextually. After all, the object of this spending is not identified in the sentence itself and so need to be supplied from the context. There are basically two options for context. Context precedent and context subsequent. Context precedent suggests that the Koran is talking about spending on wine and gambling. This approach makes sense, particularly because the very next sentence alleges perspicuity. ("Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-(Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter.")
Some may point out that "They ask thee..." may introduce a subject change. After all, in the next Ayah, we see this:
220. (Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter. They ask thee concerning orphans. Say: "The best thing to do is what is for their good; if ye mix their affairs with yours, they are your brethren; but Allah knows the man who means mischief from the man who means good. And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties: He is indeed Exalted in Power, Wise."
Notice that "They ask thee concerning orphans ..." seems to introduce a new topic. Yet this is not a rigid rule in the Koran, even in this Surah. For example, only a few ayat earlier, the Koran states:
215. They ask thee what they should spend (In charity). Say: Whatever ye spend that is good, is for parents and kindred and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers. And whatever ye do that is good, -(Allah) knoweth it well.
216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
Notice that here there is a shift from discussing spending on charity to fighting. Note in particular that "They ask thee concerning fighting ..." does not introduce a new topic. It provides a specific detail about the immediately preceding topic. Moreover, notice that the new topic of fighting was introduced without the use of "They ask ... ."
Others may point out that in this Surah, spending often refers to charitable or devotional spending. For example:
3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
177. It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.
195. And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.
215 (already presented above)
261-265 The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah ...
270. And whatever ye spend in charity or devotion, be sure Allah knows it all. But the wrong-doers have no helpers.
274. Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
This larger context certainly might seem to lend credibility to the idea that spending is not spending on wine and gambling, but on charity. On the other hand, 215 already answered the question about what should be spent on charity. So, interpreting 219 as referring to spending on charity seems to make it redundant with 215.
Moreover, there is another pattern that emerges from a study of this Surah.
The expression "Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men" is introduced to wrap up one topic and move on to a different topic in 187. Then a similar expression is used in a similar way in 221 and then again in 242 and 266.
A similar approach is also used in 3:103, Surah 4 ends in that way, and 5:89 uses the expression to separate a discussion on how to cure the moral damage from breaking an oath from a discussion on gambling and drinking.
Specifically:
90. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.What was previously some profit and great sin is now an "abomination" from Mohamed's followers must abstain.
91. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?
Of course, the above understanding isn't the understanding of the Sunni. They don't interpret 2:219 as suggesting that people should spend only their disposable income on wine and gambling. They likewise are reluctant to see "abomination of Satan's handwork" (5:90) as being in conflict with "some profit" (2:219). That isn't their view of the Koran, and their scholars do not (to my knowledge) agree with my analysis above.
But the Koran calls itself the "Qur'an that makes things clear" (15:1) and claims "We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe." (15:64)
-TurretinFan
Friday, January 06, 2012
The Real Turretin on Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant
Kerux, Volume 24, Number 3, p. 76, FN70 (Dennison et al.):
I don't post this comment to endorse it (I haven't carefully enough studied Turretin's relevant writings to form a conclusion), but simply as an interesting point worthy of further consideration. Turretin's careful distinctions are one of his principle advantages and following them is critically important in understanding his writing.
-TurretinFan
[O]ur editors have summarized Turretin as teaching that “the form of the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of works, but its substance was the covenant of grace” (12). This muddles Turretin’s otherwise careful distinctions regarding the administration of the covenant of grace under Moses, and oversimplifies his rather complex formulation. It is true that Turretin argues that the Mosaic administration contained a restatement of a “form of the covenant of works” to remind Israel of the broken covenant of works and to lead them to Christ (2:263). But Turretin later clarifies that by “form of the covenant of works,” he is referencing “the law in itself” apart from the Mosaic covenant (2:269). This he distinguishes from “the Mosaic covenant itself, in which the law was enacted” (ibid.). This administration included not only this “legal relation” but also an “evangelical relation,” which was “sweeter” in that it led them to Christ (2:227). Thus, Turretin calls this administration a “mixture of both the law and the Gospel” (2:263). As he says elsewhere: “And thus in sweet harmony the law and the gospel meet together in this covenant. The law is not administered without the gospel, nor is the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith” (2:268). In short, our editors summary of Turretin’s view of the Mosaic covenant is at best severely truncated, and at worst, misleading. It fails to grapple with Turretin’s own stated definitions, and oversimplifies Turretin’s complex (though very precise) views.
I don't post this comment to endorse it (I haven't carefully enough studied Turretin's relevant writings to form a conclusion), but simply as an interesting point worthy of further consideration. Turretin's careful distinctions are one of his principle advantages and following them is critically important in understanding his writing.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Guest Post: The Insufficiency of T. David Gordon’s Argument Against the Bible as a Sufficient Guide For Faith and Life
[A beloved and anonymous family member wrote the following article. It seems timely in view of Dr. Frame's recently released book.]
In his provocatively titled article, “The Insufficiency of Scripture,” [Updated link] T. David Gordon argues that the failings of modern evangelicals are essentially due to too high a view of Scripture—a view of Scripture that says that Scripture is relevant for all of life, not just life as “covenant community members” (the latter being Gordon’s position). Without much consideration for logic, Gordon suggests that wisdom should inform practice, and that wisdom most importantly, “does not come exclusively or perhaps even primarily, through Bible study.”
Simply reading the Bible will not bring wisdom, says he, a statement with which none but the most obtuse believer would quibble. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is needed to bring forth godly behavior, but surely the Bible must be read and apprehended in order to be applied. Yet his emphasis is not on the word, “reading,” but on the words “the Bible”. We are urged to read other things because the Bible cannot inform us for life.
Neglecting to discuss verses like Psalm 19:7-8, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;” and “in Christ in whom are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3) and II Tim. 3:16, Scripture “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” Gordon advises Christians to seek wisdom outside God’s holy Word, which he repeatedly calls inadequate to the task of teaching anything but how to live as a member of the covenant community (while never explaining what such membership entails).
Taking the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) statement that worship has circumstances that may be regulated according to the light of nature, Dr. Gordon ignores the proviso in the same section that even these circumstances are subject to Christian prudence, and the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed [emphasis mine], and generalizes illogically that this section therefore proves the insufficiency of Scripture for life in general. Apparently Gordon does not understand the regulative principle of worship which states that only that which the Bible commands is allowed in worship. The Westminster Divines wisely added there are circumstances which do not fall under this precise regulation. No Reformed theologian defends what might be called “the regulative principle of life” in which only those things commanded by the Word are allowed in life.
Gordon rightly notes that Scripture recommends obtaining wisdom from those older than us, and even from nature. However, since he seeks to divorce these sources from The Source (the Word of God), Gordon is left with a problem: how will he know when he has received wise counsel? Will the wisdom of Socrates do? How about the wisdom of one’s Unitarian grandfather? Or in the created order, shall the industrious man “go to the sloth” and be wise? Or shall the submissive wife look to the black widow spider or praying mantis? This over-the-top silliness is intended to highlight Gordon’s knot: without the Bible as a standard of truth, how can he know when he has received wisdom? The reason why we go to the ant (one of the creatures he mentions) is that the Bible tells us to do so, and it tells us what to look for in the nature of the ant; the way in which we assess what we hear from older people, is whether what they say is in accord with the teaching of Scripture.
Gordon also bashes "theonomy" not merely as the error du jour, but the error par excellence. Reading Dr. Gordon’s article, one would think that the whole Christian world had gone over to theonomic thinking when, in fact, huge tracts of evangelicalism have never heard the word "theonomy," much less adopted the tenets thereof. The Bible is insufficient, warns Gordon, to instruct and inform the “human-as-legislator” or the “human-as-physician” or the “human-as-mechanic,” as if the most ardent Bible-thumpers (as he calls them) ever tried to discover in Scripture the number of amendments to the U. S. Constitution, or the number of chambers in the human heart, or the number of spark plugs in an engine. He’s tilting at windmills.
Gordon admits that the basis for this article is not Scripture but a Gallup poll revealing high rates of divorce among evangelicals. Dr. Gordon declares “Scripture is manifestly not sufficient” (presumably the Gallup poll has made it manifest to him) “to teach people how to attain” a lifelong marriage. He reasons thus:
1. Evangelicals read the Bible.
2. Evangelicals have a high divorce rate
3. Therefore, the Bible is insufficient for any purpose outside of life as a covenant community member.
This is a leap of logic by any standard. Accordingly, Dr. Gordon’s case against the sufficiency of the Bible has proved itself to be insufficient.
- Anonymous
[Posted by TurretinFan on Anonymous' behalf]
.
In his provocatively titled article, “The Insufficiency of Scripture,” [Updated link] T. David Gordon argues that the failings of modern evangelicals are essentially due to too high a view of Scripture—a view of Scripture that says that Scripture is relevant for all of life, not just life as “covenant community members” (the latter being Gordon’s position). Without much consideration for logic, Gordon suggests that wisdom should inform practice, and that wisdom most importantly, “does not come exclusively or perhaps even primarily, through Bible study.”
Simply reading the Bible will not bring wisdom, says he, a statement with which none but the most obtuse believer would quibble. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is needed to bring forth godly behavior, but surely the Bible must be read and apprehended in order to be applied. Yet his emphasis is not on the word, “reading,” but on the words “the Bible”. We are urged to read other things because the Bible cannot inform us for life.
Neglecting to discuss verses like Psalm 19:7-8, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;” and “in Christ in whom are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3) and II Tim. 3:16, Scripture “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” Gordon advises Christians to seek wisdom outside God’s holy Word, which he repeatedly calls inadequate to the task of teaching anything but how to live as a member of the covenant community (while never explaining what such membership entails).
Taking the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) statement that worship has circumstances that may be regulated according to the light of nature, Dr. Gordon ignores the proviso in the same section that even these circumstances are subject to Christian prudence, and the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed [emphasis mine], and generalizes illogically that this section therefore proves the insufficiency of Scripture for life in general. Apparently Gordon does not understand the regulative principle of worship which states that only that which the Bible commands is allowed in worship. The Westminster Divines wisely added there are circumstances which do not fall under this precise regulation. No Reformed theologian defends what might be called “the regulative principle of life” in which only those things commanded by the Word are allowed in life.
Gordon rightly notes that Scripture recommends obtaining wisdom from those older than us, and even from nature. However, since he seeks to divorce these sources from The Source (the Word of God), Gordon is left with a problem: how will he know when he has received wise counsel? Will the wisdom of Socrates do? How about the wisdom of one’s Unitarian grandfather? Or in the created order, shall the industrious man “go to the sloth” and be wise? Or shall the submissive wife look to the black widow spider or praying mantis? This over-the-top silliness is intended to highlight Gordon’s knot: without the Bible as a standard of truth, how can he know when he has received wisdom? The reason why we go to the ant (one of the creatures he mentions) is that the Bible tells us to do so, and it tells us what to look for in the nature of the ant; the way in which we assess what we hear from older people, is whether what they say is in accord with the teaching of Scripture.
Gordon also bashes "theonomy" not merely as the error du jour, but the error par excellence. Reading Dr. Gordon’s article, one would think that the whole Christian world had gone over to theonomic thinking when, in fact, huge tracts of evangelicalism have never heard the word "theonomy," much less adopted the tenets thereof. The Bible is insufficient, warns Gordon, to instruct and inform the “human-as-legislator” or the “human-as-physician” or the “human-as-mechanic,” as if the most ardent Bible-thumpers (as he calls them) ever tried to discover in Scripture the number of amendments to the U. S. Constitution, or the number of chambers in the human heart, or the number of spark plugs in an engine. He’s tilting at windmills.
Gordon admits that the basis for this article is not Scripture but a Gallup poll revealing high rates of divorce among evangelicals. Dr. Gordon declares “Scripture is manifestly not sufficient” (presumably the Gallup poll has made it manifest to him) “to teach people how to attain” a lifelong marriage. He reasons thus:
1. Evangelicals read the Bible.
2. Evangelicals have a high divorce rate
3. Therefore, the Bible is insufficient for any purpose outside of life as a covenant community member.
This is a leap of logic by any standard. Accordingly, Dr. Gordon’s case against the sufficiency of the Bible has proved itself to be insufficient.
- Anonymous
[Posted by TurretinFan on Anonymous' behalf]
.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Responding to "Gabriel Serafin" Regarding the Religion based on the Word
A poster using the handle "Gabriel Serafin" wrote:
The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. The fact that Jesus himself did not "hand out Bibles" is hardly a compelling point, given that he frequently quoted from the old testament Scriptures and commanded his theological opponents to "Search the Scriptures."
Moreover, the final book of Scripture is the Apocalypse, which describes itself as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him ... ." (Revelation 1:1) Us folks who follow the Book know this, or at least we should. So, while it would be inaccurate to say Jesus "handed out Bibles" he certainly gave us the Bible, not only by virtue of being the Word made Flesh, and the capstone of the prophets ("God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" Hebrews 1:1-2) but also by delivering this final Revelation to John by the hand of an angel ("... sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." Revelation 1:1-2) just as also the Pentateuch was delivered ("it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator" Galatians 3:19).
You may say that Jesus established a church, and indeed Jesus did. But Jesus did not establish a church headed by some other man, but rather he is the head ("gave him to be the head over all things to the church" Ephesians 1:22; "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" Ephesians 5:23; "he is the head of the body, the church" Colossians 1:18). Jesus did not tell us that the bishop of Rome is to be a second head - as though when a husband is bodily absent some other man can fulfill that husbandly role with his wife.
In fact, the apostolic writings provide us with zero documentation of any papacy. There wasn't one. Christ did establish his church, but modern Rome is not that church.
In fact, the implied conception of "the church" is foreign to the New Testament scriptures. The expression "the church" in Scripture can refer to various things, such as the local body of believers or to the entire category of all believers. It is faith that defines the church, though - not the other way 'round.
Christ built his church on himself, the Rock and our only Rock:
The foundation stone is Christ, as it is written:
Yes, there is some secondary sense in which we are built on the apostles (all of them, together with the prophets): "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20) but notice who is the one rock on which everything else is built: it is Christ.
The Bible did not come from "the Catholic church" it was delivered to the prophets and the apostles. Most of the books were delivered in the Old Testament period, before "the Catholic church" even claims to have existed. The rest of the books were delivered by the apostles and the evangelists. The claim the Scriptures make about themselves is that they are God-breathed ("given by inspiration of God" 2 Timothy 3:16) not church-breathed.
When Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians he expressed it this way: "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)" (Galatians 1:1). Those are not the words of someone who needs to run it past the church, or even past some imaginary 1st century pope. Instead, Paul received divine revelation from Christ and was inspired to hand it on to us in writing.
God used many people, including unbelieving Jews, to preserve the text of the Bible for us. We are thankful for God's providence in that regard. Nevertheless, their role in preservation of the Scriptures is no endorsement of their theology.
Indeed, those in the English-speaking world ought rather to say that we received the Scriptures despite Rome, rather than because of Rome. Wycliffe's translation of the Bible (from the Vulgate!) was suppressed, as was Tyndale's translation from the Greek. To be a Bible translator in those days was to risk persecution, yet men did the work necessary to get God's word into the language of those in England.
The idea that "the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture in the first place" is laughable. Rome's first "infallible" definition of the canon of Scripture was at Trent - after Luther's death. That's hardly "in the first place." Moreover, even if one goes back all the way to the North African Councils that came the closest to the Tridentine canon, they weren't the first canons of Scripture to be provided. Athanasius managed to provide a canon of Scripture before the north Africans. Moreover, it is plain that others before him (such as Origen) had a canon of the Scripture.
Who is living in a state of ignorance about Christianity? Those who follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles, which are set forth in Scripture? Or those who instead following the teachings of Rome, whether or not they contradict what Scripture teaches?
James White is merely one voice among thousands of voices, one witness amongst a great cloud of witnesses. Yet referring to his appeals to the authority of Scripture as "cacophony" suggests that the author of the comment has a confused idea about Scripture.
Would that "Gabriel Serafin" would cast aside his mistaken idea that Christ's church is founded upon Peter and instead recognize that Christ's church is founded upon Christ, the true Rock of our salvation.
-TurretinFan
Protestantism is a religion based on a book. But Jesus Christ did not hand out Bibles, He established a Church and gave her authority to teach. God gave us the Bible through His Church; thus the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture in the first place. "Bible-only Christians" who dismiss the teachings of the Catholic Church are simply living in a state of ignorance and false understanding of Christianity. James White is merely one voice among thousands of voices spreading a cacophony of noise and confusion against the Church that was established by Christ. Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible..I reply:
The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. The fact that Jesus himself did not "hand out Bibles" is hardly a compelling point, given that he frequently quoted from the old testament Scriptures and commanded his theological opponents to "Search the Scriptures."
Moreover, the final book of Scripture is the Apocalypse, which describes itself as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him ... ." (Revelation 1:1) Us folks who follow the Book know this, or at least we should. So, while it would be inaccurate to say Jesus "handed out Bibles" he certainly gave us the Bible, not only by virtue of being the Word made Flesh, and the capstone of the prophets ("God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" Hebrews 1:1-2) but also by delivering this final Revelation to John by the hand of an angel ("... sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." Revelation 1:1-2) just as also the Pentateuch was delivered ("it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator" Galatians 3:19).
You may say that Jesus established a church, and indeed Jesus did. But Jesus did not establish a church headed by some other man, but rather he is the head ("gave him to be the head over all things to the church" Ephesians 1:22; "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" Ephesians 5:23; "he is the head of the body, the church" Colossians 1:18). Jesus did not tell us that the bishop of Rome is to be a second head - as though when a husband is bodily absent some other man can fulfill that husbandly role with his wife.
In fact, the apostolic writings provide us with zero documentation of any papacy. There wasn't one. Christ did establish his church, but modern Rome is not that church.
In fact, the implied conception of "the church" is foreign to the New Testament scriptures. The expression "the church" in Scripture can refer to various things, such as the local body of believers or to the entire category of all believers. It is faith that defines the church, though - not the other way 'round.
Christ built his church on himself, the Rock and our only Rock:
- "He is the Rock" Deuteronomy 32:4;
- "he forsook the God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation" Deuteronomy 32:14;
- "Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee" Deuteronomy 32:18;
- "except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?" Deuteronomy 32:30;
- "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God." 1 Samuel 2:2;
- "The LORD is my rock" 2 Samuel 22:2;
- "The God of my rock, in him will I trust" 2 Samuel 22:3;
- "who is a rock, save our God?" 2 Samuel 22:32;
- "the LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation." 2 Samuel 22:47;
- "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me," 2 Samuel 23:3;
- "The LORD is my rock" Psalm 18:2;
- "who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31;
- "The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted" Psalm 18:46;
- "O LORD my rock" Psalm 28:1;
- "be thou my strong rock" Psalm 31:2;
- "thou art my rock" Psalm 31:3;
- "I will say unto God my rock" Psalm 42:9;
- "He only is my rock and my salvation" Psalm 62:2;
- "He only is my rock and my salvation" Psalm 62:6;
- "In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God" Psalm 62:7
- "thou art my rock" Psalm 71:3;
- "they remembered that God was their rock" Psalm 78:35;
- "Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation" Psalm 89:26;
- "the LORD is upright: he is my rock" Psalm 92:15;
- "my God is the rock of my refuge" Psalm 94:22;
- "O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation" Psalm 95:1;
- "he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel" Isaiah 8:14;
- "thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength" Isaiah 17:10;
- "whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24;
- "Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: he is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock" Luke 6:47-48;
- "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:11;
- "Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" Romans 9:33;
- "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4;
- "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, " 1 Peter 2:4; and
- "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." 1 Peter 2:6-8.
The foundation stone is Christ, as it is written:
- "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." Isaiah 28:16
- "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11
Yes, there is some secondary sense in which we are built on the apostles (all of them, together with the prophets): "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20) but notice who is the one rock on which everything else is built: it is Christ.
The Bible did not come from "the Catholic church" it was delivered to the prophets and the apostles. Most of the books were delivered in the Old Testament period, before "the Catholic church" even claims to have existed. The rest of the books were delivered by the apostles and the evangelists. The claim the Scriptures make about themselves is that they are God-breathed ("given by inspiration of God" 2 Timothy 3:16) not church-breathed.
When Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians he expressed it this way: "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)" (Galatians 1:1). Those are not the words of someone who needs to run it past the church, or even past some imaginary 1st century pope. Instead, Paul received divine revelation from Christ and was inspired to hand it on to us in writing.
God used many people, including unbelieving Jews, to preserve the text of the Bible for us. We are thankful for God's providence in that regard. Nevertheless, their role in preservation of the Scriptures is no endorsement of their theology.
Indeed, those in the English-speaking world ought rather to say that we received the Scriptures despite Rome, rather than because of Rome. Wycliffe's translation of the Bible (from the Vulgate!) was suppressed, as was Tyndale's translation from the Greek. To be a Bible translator in those days was to risk persecution, yet men did the work necessary to get God's word into the language of those in England.
The idea that "the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture in the first place" is laughable. Rome's first "infallible" definition of the canon of Scripture was at Trent - after Luther's death. That's hardly "in the first place." Moreover, even if one goes back all the way to the North African Councils that came the closest to the Tridentine canon, they weren't the first canons of Scripture to be provided. Athanasius managed to provide a canon of Scripture before the north Africans. Moreover, it is plain that others before him (such as Origen) had a canon of the Scripture.
Who is living in a state of ignorance about Christianity? Those who follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles, which are set forth in Scripture? Or those who instead following the teachings of Rome, whether or not they contradict what Scripture teaches?
James White is merely one voice among thousands of voices, one witness amongst a great cloud of witnesses. Yet referring to his appeals to the authority of Scripture as "cacophony" suggests that the author of the comment has a confused idea about Scripture.
Would that "Gabriel Serafin" would cast aside his mistaken idea that Christ's church is founded upon Peter and instead recognize that Christ's church is founded upon Christ, the true Rock of our salvation.
-TurretinFan
Friday, December 30, 2011
Hubner's Recommended Reading
My friend Jamin Hubner has posted a list of books (from "both sides") regarding, in his terms, "Economics and Christian Zionism." Feel free to check out the list. He makes one remark that I'll address and let the rest pass: "they will at least pause when Tur and Hays’ [sic] essentially point a finger and say “propaganda” – especially as one reads all sides ... ." Some of these authors (for example, Alan Dershowitz) would be a better choice as a source when accusing Israel of "atrocities" as Hubner manages to do twice in this post. He's a more credible source on those issues than regular Sojourner's contributor, Burge, who Hubner lumps in with O. Palmer Robertson.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Monday, December 26, 2011
Response to Cursilista Regarding Church History
Cursilista wrote:
We have a pretty clear answer to that. Read the book of Acts. It says zero about a Roman-centered Christianity. Rome is part of Paul's mission field, it's not the locus of a papacy. We see churches being planted all over the world, wherever Paul and other missionaries go.
Cursilista continued:
Eventually, a monarchical episcopate emerged, in which one of the elders became designated as "the" bishop. Later, certain bishops gained a preeminence over others, particularly in cities that were important in the Roman empire. I could go on, and recite the tale of the development of a variety of different organizational forms that have existed from ancient times down to modern times, but suffice to say that there have been a significant number of different organizational forms that have existed, both in ancient times and - of course - in modern times.
Cursilista continued:
This is a non sequitur, premised on a misunderstanding of what Christ said.
First of all, the organizational form of the apostolic era church (with a plurality of elders accompanied by deacons in every city) was quite not carefully maintained. Even historians within the Roman communion (such as Robert Eno and Francis Sullivan) acknowledge this fact.
Second, the apostasy of individual churches (even very many of them) does not entail victory of Satan over Christ's church. Recall that during the time of the Old Testament, it seemed to God's prophet Elisha that he was the last follower of God on earth, but God replied that there were 7000 others. Thus, even if for a few years - or even a few hundred years - there were only 7000 scattered followers of Christ, it would be Satan's error to think he had the victory over the church.
We need not, however, assume that apostasy was so complete that there were only 7000 believers. Certainly there were many errors that crept into the churches, even from a very early time. Nevertheless, salvation is not obtained by having perfect doctrines or perfect practices, but rather by trusting in Christ alone for salvation.
Third, the reference to the gates of hell is a reference to death, not Satan. Recall that Wisdom 16:13 states: "For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again." The promise that Jesus is making in Matthew 16 is not some kind of victory in spiritual defense against Satan (after all, in warfare gates are themselves defensive not offensive) but rather victory over death: resurrection. The "church" that Christ is talking about here is all believers. As Christ explains: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:39, 40, 44, and 54)
Cursilista continued:
This request proceeds from the faulty premises identified above. Christ does not promise that every apostle would be faithful, much less that those who came after them would be faithful. The head of Christ's church is one: Christ, as it is written: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church," (Ephesians 1:22), "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:23), "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1:18).
It is true that Christ died, but Christ was raised again on the third day and continues to live even until this day. So, the two thousand year time span is fully accounted for.
Moreover, while Christ is bodily absent from us, he has provided us with both the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Thus, we can learn what we need to believe to be saved from them. The churches are an aid to that, but they are (and must be) subordinate to both.
Cursilista wrote:
Cursilista continued:
There are other churches that claim an ancient lineage. The Eastern Orthodox churches are the most visible alternative, but there are others as well - such as the Copts in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox. The fact that a church claims an ancient lineage does not demonstrate that the church teaches what the apostles taught. We can know what the apostles taught from the Scriptures, and we can compare the teachings of churches like Rome to those teachings to see whether they have maintained or departed from the apostolic faith.
Moreover, Rome's claims to being ancient are easily challenged. Events like the Council of Constance or the move from election by the people of Rome to election by the Cardinals suggest that the modern papacy is disconnected from the older Roman bishoprics. The fact that men have obtained the papacy by simony similarly negate the idea that somehow the Roman bishopric has been maintained against Satan's attacks. Do we even need to mention mention men like Julius III and Alexander VI who occupied the papacy but demonstrated by their way of life that they were not Christians?
Cursilista wrote:
Cursilista continued:
Cursilista again:
Cursilista assumes too much. In the Old Testament era, there was no pope, yet the same God ruled his people then. Now, we have Christ as the head of our church, and we have his official word, the Scriptures, to guide and rule us. That, however, is not enough for some, it seems.
Cursilista wrote:
Cursilista continued:
Moreover, the distinctively Roman dogmas are not that hard to put into book form. So, it is not the case that these were simply not included because the amount of dogma was too much for the New Testament to fit it all. Indeed, certain Roman advocates attempt to allege that Rome's distinctive dogmas actually are found in Scripture.
On top of that, we see that the early Christians plainly did not hold to things like papal infallibility. While many people say nice things about Rome, and many people even seek the wisdom or authority of the bishop of Rome at various times in the patristic era, where does anyone argue that the bishop of Rome is infallible? It's absurd to think that such a doctrine is apostolic or from Christ himself, yet we see people try to argue that today.
Cursilista again:
The book of Acts does not reflect this. On the contrary, the seeming "chairman" of the council described in Acts 15 is James, not Peter (who was living in Antioch or Samaria at that time, not Rome), and certainly not Linus (who is not even mentioned). Likewise, as noted above, Rome's own historians dispute the idea the Roman papacy is something that was from the beginning.
Cursilista concluded:
-TurretinFan
The one thing that bugs me is that the question I would ask is for a protestant explanation of how did Christianity move forward through time after Christ died.
We have a pretty clear answer to that. Read the book of Acts. It says zero about a Roman-centered Christianity. Rome is part of Paul's mission field, it's not the locus of a papacy. We see churches being planted all over the world, wherever Paul and other missionaries go.
Cursilista continued:
Give an explanation of what form of organization did Christianity take that survived since the time of Christ to today.The form of the organization was initially elders in every city (Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:), accompanied by deacons (Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:). The terms bishop and elder were originally synonymous.
Eventually, a monarchical episcopate emerged, in which one of the elders became designated as "the" bishop. Later, certain bishops gained a preeminence over others, particularly in cities that were important in the Roman empire. I could go on, and recite the tale of the development of a variety of different organizational forms that have existed from ancient times down to modern times, but suffice to say that there have been a significant number of different organizational forms that have existed, both in ancient times and - of course - in modern times.
Cursilista continued:
Christ said that his church would not be overcome by the gates of hell. Satan would not prevail over his church, therefore Christ's church had to have existed since his death to current time and will continue to exist forever.
This is a non sequitur, premised on a misunderstanding of what Christ said.
First of all, the organizational form of the apostolic era church (with a plurality of elders accompanied by deacons in every city) was quite not carefully maintained. Even historians within the Roman communion (such as Robert Eno and Francis Sullivan) acknowledge this fact.
Second, the apostasy of individual churches (even very many of them) does not entail victory of Satan over Christ's church. Recall that during the time of the Old Testament, it seemed to God's prophet Elisha that he was the last follower of God on earth, but God replied that there were 7000 others. Thus, even if for a few years - or even a few hundred years - there were only 7000 scattered followers of Christ, it would be Satan's error to think he had the victory over the church.
We need not, however, assume that apostasy was so complete that there were only 7000 believers. Certainly there were many errors that crept into the churches, even from a very early time. Nevertheless, salvation is not obtained by having perfect doctrines or perfect practices, but rather by trusting in Christ alone for salvation.
Third, the reference to the gates of hell is a reference to death, not Satan. Recall that Wisdom 16:13 states: "For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again." The promise that Jesus is making in Matthew 16 is not some kind of victory in spiritual defense against Satan (after all, in warfare gates are themselves defensive not offensive) but rather victory over death: resurrection. The "church" that Christ is talking about here is all believers. As Christ explains: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:39, 40, 44, and 54)
Cursilista continued:
So name that church, name the leaders of that church, show a succession of those leaders, there is a 2000 yr. span of time which has to be accounted for.
This request proceeds from the faulty premises identified above. Christ does not promise that every apostle would be faithful, much less that those who came after them would be faithful. The head of Christ's church is one: Christ, as it is written: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church," (Ephesians 1:22), "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:23), "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1:18).
It is true that Christ died, but Christ was raised again on the third day and continues to live even until this day. So, the two thousand year time span is fully accounted for.
Moreover, while Christ is bodily absent from us, he has provided us with both the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Thus, we can learn what we need to believe to be saved from them. The churches are an aid to that, but they are (and must be) subordinate to both.
Cursilista wrote:
What churches did the Apostles start. They should still be around today.Why would one assume such a thing? Look at the letters to the seven churches in Revelation (sorry, Rome didn't make that list). There is no promise to those churches, which were started in the apostolic era that they would endure forever, or that they would endure without apostasy. Indeed, can you find those seven churches now?
Cursilista continued:
For 1500 years, my only knowledge of such a Christian church is the Catholic Church.
There are other churches that claim an ancient lineage. The Eastern Orthodox churches are the most visible alternative, but there are others as well - such as the Copts in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox. The fact that a church claims an ancient lineage does not demonstrate that the church teaches what the apostles taught. We can know what the apostles taught from the Scriptures, and we can compare the teachings of churches like Rome to those teachings to see whether they have maintained or departed from the apostolic faith.
Moreover, Rome's claims to being ancient are easily challenged. Events like the Council of Constance or the move from election by the people of Rome to election by the Cardinals suggest that the modern papacy is disconnected from the older Roman bishoprics. The fact that men have obtained the papacy by simony similarly negate the idea that somehow the Roman bishopric has been maintained against Satan's attacks. Do we even need to mention mention men like Julius III and Alexander VI who occupied the papacy but demonstrated by their way of life that they were not Christians?
Cursilista wrote:
The protestant reformation took place in the early 1500’s.That's a typical sociological date. However, of course, at the time Luther was treated as being a continuation of what Huss (1369-1415) and Wycliffe (1328-1384) had started before him, in terms of opposing Rome. And we could back even prior to Wycliffe to the Waldensians, who trace their roots to Peter Waldo (1140-1218). Of course, this is only in the West. An East-West division occurred in 1054. So, while the Protestant Reformation was a very notable and important event, it's more of a continuation of lots of people disagreeing with the bishop of Rome, and the bishop of Rome (at least from the 11th century) acting as an autocrat (see the power struggle between Emperor Henry IV and the pope of his day, for example).
Cursilista continued:
The protestants need to fill in a 1500 yr. gap as to what was Christ's church, other than the catholic church, here on earth for those 1500 yrs. If they cannot, then, they have to admit that the Catholic church is the church that was established by Christ. If Christ said he church would endure forever then, either his church started at Pentecost and continues to today or Jesus waited 1500 yrs. to start his church during the protestant reformation. The later proposition is hard to believe.Mostly, this is already addressed above. The faulty presupposition behind this argument is that Christ came to establish a single denomination. Instead, the rock upon which Christ's church is built is a confession of faith in Christ alone ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God"). That is to say, "the church" is whoever trusts in Christ alone for salvation. It's not an organization with a headquarters in Rome, ruled by men in fancy clothes who sit on thrones.
Cursilista again:
Also in this debate, my two cents would be to ask the question and make this supposition . Is god a god of order or disorder. In order to organize men, there needs to be a committee and a head of that committee that controls the debate with authority.
Cursilista assumes too much. In the Old Testament era, there was no pope, yet the same God ruled his people then. Now, we have Christ as the head of our church, and we have his official word, the Scriptures, to guide and rule us. That, however, is not enough for some, it seems.
Cursilista wrote:
When Jesus left this earth , he left his church in the hands of the apostles, humans, his committee, to organize and keep intact all of his teachings.Actually, when Jesus left, he sent the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostles and evangelists to write Holy Scripture.
Cursilista continued:
Some of those teachings were not written down, so the bible says, because, all that Jesus taught his apostles couldn’t be written down, it would fill up the earth with books.Cursilista may have misunderstood the verse in question, but let us suppose that not all of Jesus' teachings were included in the Bible. If so, how could we reliably know what those other teachings were? We would have to examine the historical record to see what else the apostles were teaching, beside those things that were included in Scripture. But when we examine the historical record, we don't see the distinctively Roman teachings (like papal infallibility, the bodily assumption of Mary, or the immaculate conception) being taught in the earliest period.
Moreover, the distinctively Roman dogmas are not that hard to put into book form. So, it is not the case that these were simply not included because the amount of dogma was too much for the New Testament to fit it all. Indeed, certain Roman advocates attempt to allege that Rome's distinctive dogmas actually are found in Scripture.
On top of that, we see that the early Christians plainly did not hold to things like papal infallibility. While many people say nice things about Rome, and many people even seek the wisdom or authority of the bishop of Rome at various times in the patristic era, where does anyone argue that the bishop of Rome is infallible? It's absurd to think that such a doctrine is apostolic or from Christ himself, yet we see people try to argue that today.
Cursilista again:
Therefore, The apostles with someone as the , lets call it chairman of the board of the committee, was the governing authority of the faith.
The book of Acts does not reflect this. On the contrary, the seeming "chairman" of the council described in Acts 15 is James, not Peter (who was living in Antioch or Samaria at that time, not Rome), and certainly not Linus (who is not even mentioned). Likewise, as noted above, Rome's own historians dispute the idea the Roman papacy is something that was from the beginning.
Cursilista concluded:
How else would the faith survive intact if not for some form of human organizational body in place to keep the teachings intact and without error or human interpretation to twist the teachings to cultural changes as time went by.The answer should be obvious: Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit preserve and persuade us of the apostolic faith. There is no promise all believers will have beliefs totally free from error. But our faith does not depend an organization of men or a particular denomination of believers.
-TurretinFan
A Christmas Message from the Head of the Church of England
I set aside my views of patriarchy and the appropriate relation of church and state to praise the evangelical tone of this message from one of the last outspoken Christian monarchs.
Long live her royal majesty, Queen Elizabeth II!
-TurretinFan
Long live her royal majesty, Queen Elizabeth II!
-TurretinFan
A Trivium of Responses to Jamin
Let's tackle Jamin's recent post in three parts, which we will style rhetoric, grammar, and logic. Those familiar with classical education will catch the allusion. The labels don't perfectly fit, but we'll shoe-horn the arguments into those labels. We'll also take them out of the traditional order, addressing Jamin's rhetoric first (but immediately I will start abusing my outline by using rhetoric in a more conventional sense).
Rhetoric
Jamin begins his post by what appears to be an appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy). He claims he will try to clarify the record "without repeating Tur’s condescending tone ... ." Of course, that doesn't stop him from using a form of "absurd" and "silly" twice each in his post as a substitute for an argument. But leaving aside any hypocrisy of the tone complaint, the tone of my criticisms of Jamin is totally irrelevant to the truth of the criticisms. Moreover, in this case, Jamin sounds like the parricide who seeks the court's mercy because he's now an orphan. He's complaining about something he brought on himself.
As for the tone, what exactly does Jamin want the tone of my criticism to be? He gets upset when Steve Hays lampoons him with sharp criticism and he gets upset when I criticize him "condescendingly". Is there some tone of criticism that Jamin would accept?
I recognize that a few people who - like myself - appreciate and value Jamin and Jamin's effort may get upset that my criticism is now taking a more sharp turn. And, they may rightly point out that Jamin's ability (or lack thereof) to take criticism is not relevant to the validity of arguments.
And that's mostly true. Whether Jamin is dispassionate rock or a crybaby (he's not at either extreme) is irrelevant to whether his conclusions follow from his premises. On the other hand, Jamin seems to want to make it an issue by bringing it up from the very outset of the post. So, he made it an issue - we're just responding.
Grammar
Except that these points seem rather fundamental, they do not really fit the "grammar" tag well, as they have little to do with the mechanics of language. Perhaps you could say that they have to do with the mechanics of knowledge, but that might seem a stretch.
Jamin asks:
Jamin again:
Jamin himself has three posts under his "book review" tag on his blog, in which he has reviewed five books (three in one post). So, you might think he'd understand the concept of people forming judgments about books based solely on reviews. It's not as though reading any of those reviews intellectually commits the reader to subsequently buying and reading the work. And if one does not have such an intellectual commitment, then it follows that people can and do (in many cases) form conclusions based solely on reviews.
Logic
One might think "logic" would better fit my identification of Jamin's fallacy above. However, I have selected the following points for the "logic" tag, because they deal with how Jamin actually addresses the substance of the argument regarding his use of sources.
As for the problem with Jamin's sources (something that Steve Hays has dogged him about for a while), Jamin gets the closest yet to actually dealing with what Steve has presented. Don't get your hopes too high, though, for Jamin admits: "I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered ... ."
Jamin, however, offers several reasons, justifications, or excuses for why he hasn't addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered.
1) Steve's Thesis "is absurd"
Jamin begins his argument by asserting that Steve's contention (he often seems to attribute that contention to me, but we'll leave that problem aside for now) that Jamin's source is essentially propaganda for Hamas is "absurd."
He claims that it is absurd because "The book is little more than a good Bible study on “Israel” (!), with some middle-eastern history on the side ... " (emphasis and exclamation point in the original) How that's supposed to render a propaganda thesis "absurd" is not explained. Such a book falls within the genre of books that a Hamas' propagandist (even a knowing, intentional one, though that wasn't Steve's claim) would produce.
Jamin further supports his claim by vouching for the history in the book: "the vast majority of which is accurate by other historians’ (Israeli!) accounts ... ." Jamin seems here to be grasping the concept of source bias. Had he cited to the Israeli accounts, Steve wouldn't be able to allege source bias. As for Jamin's vouch, that rests on his credibility.
As for whether the book is a "good" study, we simply are given Jamin's own vouching for the matter.
2) "Anyone who has read the book knows that."
Then one would expect that all the on-line reviews would reflect that, no? I mean, assuming those reviewers read the book. Otherwise, this just seems like Jamin vouching more dogmatically.
3) "But that’s just the problem: Tur and Hays haven’t read it, don’t intend to, and remain at the mercy of online reviewers"
Of course, it is totally irrelevant to the criticism that Jamin is receiving whether or not Steve or I read the book. Neither Steve's arguments nor my criticism require such a premise. Jamin is fallaciously reasoning when he insists that "the problem" is that his critics haven't read the book he cites.
Even Jamin's own review of the book suggests that middle eastern history is just a side topic of the book, and that some unspecified portion of that history is not accurate according to other historians (perhaps the portion cited by Jamin, perhaps some other portion, we're not told).
Most importantly, though, whether or not Jamin's source is biased is true whether or not Steve or I ever read the book, much less whether we intend to read the book. Do I have to read "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to know that it is an anti-Semitic propaganda piece? Do I have to intend to do so? Certainly not.
Jamin knows that, he's just not reasoning logically.
4) "online reviewers – certainly many who are as biased as Burge or anyone else"
Huh? So, is Burge biased or not? Are his critics biased or not? Is no one biased? This seems to be an attempted "your mother is too" argument without the actual support for the assertion about your mother. In other words, Jamin does not identify any particular bias of any particular online (or offline) reviewer, but simply waves his hands.
5) "The burden of proof is to demonstrate that so-called pro-Hamas’ propaganda actually is pro-Hamas propaganda – if that’s what all of this is really about."
Steve already offered evidence in support of that contention. That shifts the burden back to Jamin to revitalize his source by addressing the evidence (something Jamin admits he has refused to do). While Steve cannot just claim that Jamin's source is biased, Steve didn't just claim - he also provided supporting evidence.
6) "For me, it’s obviously more than that, esp. since I know that Burge’s assertions can/could have been substantiated by a number of other sources, as Burge says nothing profoundly new in the larger scheme of things."
a) That's a demonstration of why it was not particularly wise to cite Burge for this particular point. Jamin didn't have to cite him for that point, and Burge isn't really "the authority" on that point. As Jamin seems to concede above, middle east history wasn't even the focal point of Burge's book.
b) Jamin's attempt to get past this issue would proceed a lot more smoothly if he would just say to to Steve, "You're right - that was a bad source for that point. However, here is a good source for that point." Then Steve would have nothing left except to drag up a mistake that Jamin has already acknowledged. I can understand Jamin's desire to deal with other topics, but he keeps posting about this one, leading to reply posts.
7) "It’s about the truth of what I was discussing in that original article the first place: the atrocities behind and consequences of the establishment of Israel and that the Israel of today is the Israel of the OT"
No doubt that is the subject Jamin would prefer to discuss, rather than whether his source was bad a source, but see above.
8) "Tur says “people are capable of knowing what an author’s intention was without having read the original book.” Then perhaps Tur should inform us about what Burge’s intention really is in Whose Land?"
Of course, this is a non sequitur. Just because it is true that in general one can know an author's intention without having read the original book does not mean that I personally know it in every case or in any particular case. Also, see below.
9) "if not simply to briefly portray middle-eastern conflict from the eyes of Palestinians (that’s primarily a geographical group, not ethnic group) and examine what Scripture has to say about “Israel.”"
I'm not sure if Jamin knows this, but we now have Jamin's thesis conveyed to us about the author's intention (without us having to read the book). That supports my contention that people are capable of knowing what an author's intention was without having read the original.
10) "If there is some hidden pro-terrorist agenda behind this Wheaton NT professor’s work that we should know about, then perhaps that should be demonstrated before going any further."
a) "Hidden pro-terrorist agenda" puts too intentional a turn on the matter.
b) But Steve has already provided the demonstration that Jamin has refused to address.
c) Given that Steve has already proffered evidence and Jamin refuses to address it, it's disingenuous for Jamin to continue to demand demonstration.
11) "I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered because it’s entirely unnecessary: I’ve read the book!"
Jamin's confused. Reading the reviews might be unnecessary if one has already read the book. However, if the reviews are presented as the evidence that the book is biased, and if Jamin wants to maintain that the book is not biased, based on more than just his personal vouching, he needs to address the evidence.
Obviously, Jamin is free to vouch for the book himself (as he seems to be doing over and over again), but simply vouching for the book himself isn't really addressing the opposing reviews.
12) "I know what’s in it. I don’t have to consult secondary sources on the work since I’m one to produce them."
This is just a continuation of the same confusion already addressed at (11).
13) "Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that other people see things that slip my attention and expertise."
Expertise? In any event, this is just a concession that reading of the reviews might be helpful even to a person who read the book. However, this line of thought is confused, as explained at (11).
14) "But do any of these “reviews” (which I have looked at) really establish through adequate facts and documentation that this college professor is intentionally helping terrorists ... through his work or otherwise?"
a) Jamin adds in a layer of intentionality and specific intentionality that's not really necessary (As Steve explained: "Obviously Burge doesn't see it that way. That's the nature of dupery. If you knew you were being duped, you wouldn't be a dupe."). And Steve further suggests just looking at Burge's recent blog posts (link) with topics like "Five Frustrations When You Debate Israel and the Palestinians" and "When Will 3.5 Million Palestinians Get Their Chance For Freedom?" Burge (or whoever titles his blog posts) does not seem to try to present himself as an unbiased source on the matter.
b) More importantly, until Jamin actually addresses the reviews, we won't have a counter-argument as to why they fall short of meeting the standard that is necessary (whether the standard is that Burge is an unwitting or intentional propagandist for Hamas).
15) "That’s why I ignored this tangent on sources and sought to address the underlying presuppositions behind Hays’ violent reaction by asking him 3 simple questions, all three of which Hays (to my knowledge) has not to this day answered himself."
a) Why on earth should Hays answer three admittedly irrelevant questions? This is a gigantic red herring.
b) What Jamin has actually done is to impugn Steve's motive. But, of course, Steve's motives are not relevant to the truth of Steve's arguments. Whether Steve is an evil "Zionist" or not does not make his criticism of Jamin's sources true or false.
16) "I wanted to get past the silly (and I mean silly) assertions about Hamas shills, Britney Spears, man-crushes and Lord knows what else (recount some of it here) and hopefully have a meaningful discussion on something substantive."
a) Hays' raised an objection to a use of a source. It seems like Jamin has three options: (1) to address the criticism by rebutting the source; (2) to withdraw the source; or (3) to ignore the criticism. But to respond to the criticism by trying to force the critic to talk about something else is just irrational.
b) Calling the criticism he receives "silly" isn't really a substitute for an argument as to why it is silly. Steve's lampoon regarding the overly sympathetic fan of Britney Spears may well have been over the top, but that is the nature of lampoons.
17) "But it has been clear that anything but that will happen – whether Tur’s mockery or Hays’ absurd comparison of Dr. White to Norman Geisler."
Hubner would rather discuss "anything but" Hubner's mistakes. We get that. That's totally natural. However, that doesn't justify styling criticism "mockery" and "absurd." The comparison of Dr. White to Dr. Geisler was just that neither seems to hold their protege accountable. As Steve's post put it: "Geisler syndrome is when a mentor automatically covers for his protégé" As Steve's latest comment states: "Jamin continues to suffer from lack of responsible mentoring." That comparison could be made absurd by suggesting that Jamin's use of sources is the moral equivalent of Caner's behavior, but Steve did not make that suggestion. Perhaps Dr. White took it that way, which would be unfortunate, but if you carefully read Steve's post (as Dr. White himself suggested) it becomes clear what Steve's very narrow criticism was. Namely: "Because Caner isn’t White’s own protégé, White can clearly see the problem with Geisler. But because Hubner is White’s protégé, he lacks the same objectivity in that case." Incidentally, you'll find me disagreeing with some of Steve's points in the comment box of that post. Moreover, whether or not Steve's comparison is correct is different from whether or not it is absurd.
18) "How unfortunate, indeed, that any of this has to be written."
You might think that Hays had a gun to Hubner's head, forcing him to double down on his mistakes instead of retracting them. Or even forcing Hubner to respond to the criticism of his position. That's not the case. Ultimately, "this" gets written because Hubner doesn't want to just say, "Sorry, it was a bad source. However, the same points can be documented from Israeli sources X, Y, and Z." "This" gets written because (apparently) Hubner wants to write about it.
19) "Oh, and I did just notice that this ‘Hamas Shill’ and Hamas ‘propagandist’ just wrote a new book endorsed by Craig Blomberg, Marshall, Longenecker and others"
Ironically, those are the concluding words of Jamin's post. I'm not sure whether the tone police will be asking for his badge and gun.
More significantly, of course, he's referring us to the endorsement/review of the book by three men, so we can form a judgment about the author without having to have read the book, conceding the very point he disputes above.
Conclusion
Where can we go from here? It's up to Jamin. He can continue to complain that he's getting criticized, he can retract, he can address the evidence Steve has presented, or he can just let it go. I don't really see what point there would be in my continued involvement in the discussion, unless - of course - Jamin drags me back into the discussion of Jamin.
-TurretinFan
Rhetoric
Jamin begins his post by what appears to be an appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy). He claims he will try to clarify the record "without repeating Tur’s condescending tone ... ." Of course, that doesn't stop him from using a form of "absurd" and "silly" twice each in his post as a substitute for an argument. But leaving aside any hypocrisy of the tone complaint, the tone of my criticisms of Jamin is totally irrelevant to the truth of the criticisms. Moreover, in this case, Jamin sounds like the parricide who seeks the court's mercy because he's now an orphan. He's complaining about something he brought on himself.
As for the tone, what exactly does Jamin want the tone of my criticism to be? He gets upset when Steve Hays lampoons him with sharp criticism and he gets upset when I criticize him "condescendingly". Is there some tone of criticism that Jamin would accept?
I recognize that a few people who - like myself - appreciate and value Jamin and Jamin's effort may get upset that my criticism is now taking a more sharp turn. And, they may rightly point out that Jamin's ability (or lack thereof) to take criticism is not relevant to the validity of arguments.
And that's mostly true. Whether Jamin is dispassionate rock or a crybaby (he's not at either extreme) is irrelevant to whether his conclusions follow from his premises. On the other hand, Jamin seems to want to make it an issue by bringing it up from the very outset of the post. So, he made it an issue - we're just responding.
Grammar
Except that these points seem rather fundamental, they do not really fit the "grammar" tag well, as they have little to do with the mechanics of language. Perhaps you could say that they have to do with the mechanics of knowledge, but that might seem a stretch.
Jamin asks:
But seriously, can you imagine if our judgments on people’s character and the reliability of their work was based solely on the reading of other people‘s opinions of them?Yes, that is one reason why people write book reviews, because other people wish to form judgments solely based on reading other people's opinions of the work, without having to read the work themselves. We have an expression, "Don't judge a book by its cover," but people quite often do.
Jamin again:
Take for example Dr. James White and his work. Could you imagine the kind of picture of his work and character that would emerge if all I were to read were what other people online wrote?Yes, I can imagine that. Dr. White has both critics and fans on-line. The critics criticize, the fans praise. In point of fact, some of Dr. White's books have reviews/endorsements printed on the outside cover for the very purpose of leading people to form a (positive) conclusion about what Dr. White wrote, so that they will be inclined to purchase and/or read the book.
Jamin himself has three posts under his "book review" tag on his blog, in which he has reviewed five books (three in one post). So, you might think he'd understand the concept of people forming judgments about books based solely on reviews. It's not as though reading any of those reviews intellectually commits the reader to subsequently buying and reading the work. And if one does not have such an intellectual commitment, then it follows that people can and do (in many cases) form conclusions based solely on reviews.
Logic
One might think "logic" would better fit my identification of Jamin's fallacy above. However, I have selected the following points for the "logic" tag, because they deal with how Jamin actually addresses the substance of the argument regarding his use of sources.
As for the problem with Jamin's sources (something that Steve Hays has dogged him about for a while), Jamin gets the closest yet to actually dealing with what Steve has presented. Don't get your hopes too high, though, for Jamin admits: "I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered ... ."
Jamin, however, offers several reasons, justifications, or excuses for why he hasn't addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered.
1) Steve's Thesis "is absurd"
Jamin begins his argument by asserting that Steve's contention (he often seems to attribute that contention to me, but we'll leave that problem aside for now) that Jamin's source is essentially propaganda for Hamas is "absurd."
He claims that it is absurd because "The book is little more than a good Bible study on “Israel” (!), with some middle-eastern history on the side ... " (emphasis and exclamation point in the original) How that's supposed to render a propaganda thesis "absurd" is not explained. Such a book falls within the genre of books that a Hamas' propagandist (even a knowing, intentional one, though that wasn't Steve's claim) would produce.
Jamin further supports his claim by vouching for the history in the book: "the vast majority of which is accurate by other historians’ (Israeli!) accounts ... ." Jamin seems here to be grasping the concept of source bias. Had he cited to the Israeli accounts, Steve wouldn't be able to allege source bias. As for Jamin's vouch, that rests on his credibility.
As for whether the book is a "good" study, we simply are given Jamin's own vouching for the matter.
2) "Anyone who has read the book knows that."
Then one would expect that all the on-line reviews would reflect that, no? I mean, assuming those reviewers read the book. Otherwise, this just seems like Jamin vouching more dogmatically.
3) "But that’s just the problem: Tur and Hays haven’t read it, don’t intend to, and remain at the mercy of online reviewers"
Of course, it is totally irrelevant to the criticism that Jamin is receiving whether or not Steve or I read the book. Neither Steve's arguments nor my criticism require such a premise. Jamin is fallaciously reasoning when he insists that "the problem" is that his critics haven't read the book he cites.
Even Jamin's own review of the book suggests that middle eastern history is just a side topic of the book, and that some unspecified portion of that history is not accurate according to other historians (perhaps the portion cited by Jamin, perhaps some other portion, we're not told).
Most importantly, though, whether or not Jamin's source is biased is true whether or not Steve or I ever read the book, much less whether we intend to read the book. Do I have to read "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to know that it is an anti-Semitic propaganda piece? Do I have to intend to do so? Certainly not.
Jamin knows that, he's just not reasoning logically.
4) "online reviewers – certainly many who are as biased as Burge or anyone else"
Huh? So, is Burge biased or not? Are his critics biased or not? Is no one biased? This seems to be an attempted "your mother is too" argument without the actual support for the assertion about your mother. In other words, Jamin does not identify any particular bias of any particular online (or offline) reviewer, but simply waves his hands.
5) "The burden of proof is to demonstrate that so-called pro-Hamas’ propaganda actually is pro-Hamas propaganda – if that’s what all of this is really about."
Steve already offered evidence in support of that contention. That shifts the burden back to Jamin to revitalize his source by addressing the evidence (something Jamin admits he has refused to do). While Steve cannot just claim that Jamin's source is biased, Steve didn't just claim - he also provided supporting evidence.
6) "For me, it’s obviously more than that, esp. since I know that Burge’s assertions can/could have been substantiated by a number of other sources, as Burge says nothing profoundly new in the larger scheme of things."
a) That's a demonstration of why it was not particularly wise to cite Burge for this particular point. Jamin didn't have to cite him for that point, and Burge isn't really "the authority" on that point. As Jamin seems to concede above, middle east history wasn't even the focal point of Burge's book.
b) Jamin's attempt to get past this issue would proceed a lot more smoothly if he would just say to to Steve, "You're right - that was a bad source for that point. However, here is a good source for that point." Then Steve would have nothing left except to drag up a mistake that Jamin has already acknowledged. I can understand Jamin's desire to deal with other topics, but he keeps posting about this one, leading to reply posts.
7) "It’s about the truth of what I was discussing in that original article the first place: the atrocities behind and consequences of the establishment of Israel and that the Israel of today is the Israel of the OT"
No doubt that is the subject Jamin would prefer to discuss, rather than whether his source was bad a source, but see above.
8) "Tur says “people are capable of knowing what an author’s intention was without having read the original book.” Then perhaps Tur should inform us about what Burge’s intention really is in Whose Land?"
Of course, this is a non sequitur. Just because it is true that in general one can know an author's intention without having read the original book does not mean that I personally know it in every case or in any particular case. Also, see below.
9) "if not simply to briefly portray middle-eastern conflict from the eyes of Palestinians (that’s primarily a geographical group, not ethnic group) and examine what Scripture has to say about “Israel.”"
I'm not sure if Jamin knows this, but we now have Jamin's thesis conveyed to us about the author's intention (without us having to read the book). That supports my contention that people are capable of knowing what an author's intention was without having read the original.
10) "If there is some hidden pro-terrorist agenda behind this Wheaton NT professor’s work that we should know about, then perhaps that should be demonstrated before going any further."
a) "Hidden pro-terrorist agenda" puts too intentional a turn on the matter.
b) But Steve has already provided the demonstration that Jamin has refused to address.
c) Given that Steve has already proffered evidence and Jamin refuses to address it, it's disingenuous for Jamin to continue to demand demonstration.
11) "I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered because it’s entirely unnecessary: I’ve read the book!"
Jamin's confused. Reading the reviews might be unnecessary if one has already read the book. However, if the reviews are presented as the evidence that the book is biased, and if Jamin wants to maintain that the book is not biased, based on more than just his personal vouching, he needs to address the evidence.
Obviously, Jamin is free to vouch for the book himself (as he seems to be doing over and over again), but simply vouching for the book himself isn't really addressing the opposing reviews.
12) "I know what’s in it. I don’t have to consult secondary sources on the work since I’m one to produce them."
This is just a continuation of the same confusion already addressed at (11).
13) "Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that other people see things that slip my attention and expertise."
Expertise? In any event, this is just a concession that reading of the reviews might be helpful even to a person who read the book. However, this line of thought is confused, as explained at (11).
14) "But do any of these “reviews” (which I have looked at) really establish through adequate facts and documentation that this college professor is intentionally helping terrorists ... through his work or otherwise?"
a) Jamin adds in a layer of intentionality and specific intentionality that's not really necessary (As Steve explained: "Obviously Burge doesn't see it that way. That's the nature of dupery. If you knew you were being duped, you wouldn't be a dupe."). And Steve further suggests just looking at Burge's recent blog posts (link) with topics like "Five Frustrations When You Debate Israel and the Palestinians" and "When Will 3.5 Million Palestinians Get Their Chance For Freedom?" Burge (or whoever titles his blog posts) does not seem to try to present himself as an unbiased source on the matter.
b) More importantly, until Jamin actually addresses the reviews, we won't have a counter-argument as to why they fall short of meeting the standard that is necessary (whether the standard is that Burge is an unwitting or intentional propagandist for Hamas).
15) "That’s why I ignored this tangent on sources and sought to address the underlying presuppositions behind Hays’ violent reaction by asking him 3 simple questions, all three of which Hays (to my knowledge) has not to this day answered himself."
a) Why on earth should Hays answer three admittedly irrelevant questions? This is a gigantic red herring.
b) What Jamin has actually done is to impugn Steve's motive. But, of course, Steve's motives are not relevant to the truth of Steve's arguments. Whether Steve is an evil "Zionist" or not does not make his criticism of Jamin's sources true or false.
16) "I wanted to get past the silly (and I mean silly) assertions about Hamas shills, Britney Spears, man-crushes and Lord knows what else (recount some of it here) and hopefully have a meaningful discussion on something substantive."
a) Hays' raised an objection to a use of a source. It seems like Jamin has three options: (1) to address the criticism by rebutting the source; (2) to withdraw the source; or (3) to ignore the criticism. But to respond to the criticism by trying to force the critic to talk about something else is just irrational.
b) Calling the criticism he receives "silly" isn't really a substitute for an argument as to why it is silly. Steve's lampoon regarding the overly sympathetic fan of Britney Spears may well have been over the top, but that is the nature of lampoons.
17) "But it has been clear that anything but that will happen – whether Tur’s mockery or Hays’ absurd comparison of Dr. White to Norman Geisler."
Hubner would rather discuss "anything but" Hubner's mistakes. We get that. That's totally natural. However, that doesn't justify styling criticism "mockery" and "absurd." The comparison of Dr. White to Dr. Geisler was just that neither seems to hold their protege accountable. As Steve's post put it: "Geisler syndrome is when a mentor automatically covers for his protégé" As Steve's latest comment states: "Jamin continues to suffer from lack of responsible mentoring." That comparison could be made absurd by suggesting that Jamin's use of sources is the moral equivalent of Caner's behavior, but Steve did not make that suggestion. Perhaps Dr. White took it that way, which would be unfortunate, but if you carefully read Steve's post (as Dr. White himself suggested) it becomes clear what Steve's very narrow criticism was. Namely: "Because Caner isn’t White’s own protégé, White can clearly see the problem with Geisler. But because Hubner is White’s protégé, he lacks the same objectivity in that case." Incidentally, you'll find me disagreeing with some of Steve's points in the comment box of that post. Moreover, whether or not Steve's comparison is correct is different from whether or not it is absurd.
18) "How unfortunate, indeed, that any of this has to be written."
You might think that Hays had a gun to Hubner's head, forcing him to double down on his mistakes instead of retracting them. Or even forcing Hubner to respond to the criticism of his position. That's not the case. Ultimately, "this" gets written because Hubner doesn't want to just say, "Sorry, it was a bad source. However, the same points can be documented from Israeli sources X, Y, and Z." "This" gets written because (apparently) Hubner wants to write about it.
19) "Oh, and I did just notice that this ‘Hamas Shill’ and Hamas ‘propagandist’ just wrote a new book endorsed by Craig Blomberg, Marshall, Longenecker and others"
Ironically, those are the concluding words of Jamin's post. I'm not sure whether the tone police will be asking for his badge and gun.
More significantly, of course, he's referring us to the endorsement/review of the book by three men, so we can form a judgment about the author without having to have read the book, conceding the very point he disputes above.
Conclusion
Where can we go from here? It's up to Jamin. He can continue to complain that he's getting criticized, he can retract, he can address the evidence Steve has presented, or he can just let it go. I don't really see what point there would be in my continued involvement in the discussion, unless - of course - Jamin drags me back into the discussion of Jamin.
-TurretinFan
Friday, December 23, 2011
Idolatry Defined
"IDOL, 'i-dol [1 Kings xv. 13], IDOLATRY. [Acts xvii. 16.] Whatever receives the worship which is due only to God is an idol. In a figurative sense the word denotes anything which draws the affections from God [Col. iii. 5]; and, in a restricted sense, it denotes the visible image or figure to which religious worship is paid [Deut. xxix. 17.] Idolatry consists (1) In worshipping as the true God some other person or thing besides Jehovah; and (2) Worshipping the true God under some image, as the golden calf. [Exod. xxxii. 4, 5.]
Why Pray to Anyone Else?
God declares:
Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
Mary declares:
Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
The angel declares:
Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And remember what Jesus himself taught us about how to pray:
Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, ...
So, my dear friends, why entreat Mary to save you?
Why utter this kind of prayer? "O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying."
Why refer to her by the title, "Salvation of the Roman People" as did John Paul II?
Turn from this idolatry and serve God alone.
As Jesus rebuked Satan:
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Your service to Mary is an offense to God. What better time to turn from Mary to Her Son than when men around the world are remembering Jesus birth?
-TurretinFan
Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
Mary declares:
Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
The angel declares:
Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And remember what Jesus himself taught us about how to pray:
Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, ...
So, my dear friends, why entreat Mary to save you?
Why utter this kind of prayer? "O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying."
Why refer to her by the title, "Salvation of the Roman People" as did John Paul II?
Turn from this idolatry and serve God alone.
As Jesus rebuked Satan:
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Your service to Mary is an offense to God. What better time to turn from Mary to Her Son than when men around the world are remembering Jesus birth?
-TurretinFan
Chrysostom and Vatican I
Back in 2007, James White posted the following quotation from John Chrysostom:
A blogger interested in the Roman communion, going by the handle "The Idler" has posted a response to this quotation.
The Idler writes: "It is a difficult quote for a convert investigating the Catholic Church's view of the papacy to digest, as it seems upon first glance to outright deny the [Roman] Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18-19." (bracketed insertion mine)
It's not just on first glance. The quotation specifically denies "upon Peter" as the meaning, but instead insists that the passage refers to his faith. Vatican I insists that Matthew 16:18 be understood to refer to Peter himself.
The Idler continues: "If we examine what else St. John Chrysostom says in his writings and homilies, we can tell that he does not agree with James White outside of that select passage."
Before we continue, it's important to note that there are not just two options "James White" and "Rome." Certainly Chrysostom didn't see it that way (neither James White nor modern Rome was around in his day). Thus, it is conceivably possible for Chrysostom both to disagree with James White and modern Rome.
The Idler then provides selections from Chrysostom's Homily 52 on Matthew. In that homily Chrysostom uses the following flowery description of Peter: "What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers."
He goes on to say, later in the homily:
(Chrysostom, Homily 52 on Matthew)
The Idler argues:
There is nothing especially objectionable about this comment from the Idler.
The Idler then continues:
He doesn't say "head of the apostles." But even if he had said that (he does call him the "leader" after all), he can still say that without adopting Rome's view of Matthew 16:18, and certainly without adopting the papacy as a whole. Certainly, prior to Paul's calling, Peter is one of the most prominent apostles.
Moreover, Chrysostom certainly doesn't suggest that Peter's confession of faith makes him the head. We could discuss this in more detail, but Peter's confession makes him an example and representative of all Christians who make that same confession of faith. But such a role is not the papacy.
At the same time the Idler should also be careful about getting too exuberant. Even if Chrysostom thought that Peter was the chief apostle, or the leader of the apostles, that does not mean, imply, or suggest that Chrysostom thought that there was a perpetual office of "head of the church" to be filled by a mere man, or that the person filling such an office was the bishop of Rome.
As my friend, Pastor David King, wrote on a previous occasion:
-TurretinFan
Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (In pentecosten 52.806.75 - 52.807.1)(source)
A blogger interested in the Roman communion, going by the handle "The Idler" has posted a response to this quotation.
The Idler writes: "It is a difficult quote for a convert investigating the Catholic Church's view of the papacy to digest, as it seems upon first glance to outright deny the [Roman] Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18-19." (bracketed insertion mine)
It's not just on first glance. The quotation specifically denies "upon Peter" as the meaning, but instead insists that the passage refers to his faith. Vatican I insists that Matthew 16:18 be understood to refer to Peter himself.
The Idler continues: "If we examine what else St. John Chrysostom says in his writings and homilies, we can tell that he does not agree with James White outside of that select passage."
Before we continue, it's important to note that there are not just two options "James White" and "Rome." Certainly Chrysostom didn't see it that way (neither James White nor modern Rome was around in his day). Thus, it is conceivably possible for Chrysostom both to disagree with James White and modern Rome.
The Idler then provides selections from Chrysostom's Homily 52 on Matthew. In that homily Chrysostom uses the following flowery description of Peter: "What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers."
He goes on to say, later in the homily:
Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as “a brazen pillar, and as a wall;” but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. “For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” How then is He less, who hath given such gifts, hath effected such things?
(Chrysostom, Homily 52 on Matthew)
The Idler argues:
It is important to note that surrounding the above words both before and after, Chrysostom makes a reference to the Arians, a heretical movement that denied the divinity of Christ, referring to them as "those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son", and asks them "how then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?". Therefore, it is no surprise in my mind that Chrysostom speaks of St. Peter's faith being the rock upon which the Church is built. Simply put, he is showing that it is the faith in Christ as the Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, that is of utmost import, and this profession of faith is why Christ placed St. Peter in the position of authority that he did. In effect, he is countering the Arians with these passages.
There is nothing especially objectionable about this comment from the Idler.
The Idler then continues:
But see how he does not place the idea of the primacy of St. Peter aside, but rather calls him "the mouth of the apostles", "the leader of the apostlic choir", "the leader of them all, Peter", and "makes him a shepherd" that is to guide "every part of the world". Further on, we see Chrysostom say, "For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world".Of course, none of this contradicts the point that Chrysostom denies that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. It simply affirms that Peter is spokesman for the apostles in this instance, and someone who is to bring the gospel to the whole world.
In effect, Chrysostom is still holding St. Peter as the head of the apostles, but it is confession of faith that makes him this head.
He doesn't say "head of the apostles." But even if he had said that (he does call him the "leader" after all), he can still say that without adopting Rome's view of Matthew 16:18, and certainly without adopting the papacy as a whole. Certainly, prior to Paul's calling, Peter is one of the most prominent apostles.
Moreover, Chrysostom certainly doesn't suggest that Peter's confession of faith makes him the head. We could discuss this in more detail, but Peter's confession makes him an example and representative of all Christians who make that same confession of faith. But such a role is not the papacy.
Now, maybe I am blind but I simply do not see Chrysostom as somehow against the [Roman] Catholic notion of the primacy of St. Peter, his being the rock by virtue of his confession, and the like. Obviously, Protestants will not agree with this, nor will the Eastern Orthodox. But I cannot help but coming to the conclusion that I do.When Chrysostom says "He did not say upon Peter" he's denying Rome's current view of Matthew 16:18. That does not mean that Chrysostom is adopting some other view in which he denies absolutely everything modern Rome says about Peter.
At the same time the Idler should also be careful about getting too exuberant. Even if Chrysostom thought that Peter was the chief apostle, or the leader of the apostles, that does not mean, imply, or suggest that Chrysostom thought that there was a perpetual office of "head of the church" to be filled by a mere man, or that the person filling such an office was the bishop of Rome.
As my friend, Pastor David King, wrote on a previous occasion:
Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome. In fact, for the better part of his ministerial life, Chrysostom was, technically speaking, out of communion with Rome. Therefore, he was ordained (as most Roman Catholics would argue if consistent) by someone outside the communion of Rome, also claiming to be part of the Catholic Church. Chrysostom was baptized (AD 369) and ordained to the diaconate (AD 380) by Meletius who at the time was out of communion with Rome, and Chrysostom was ordained to the priesthood (AD 386) by Flavian, whom Rome refused to recognize as bishop, and had been de facto excommunicated some years before the ordination of Chrysostom. According to the standard of Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, both Meletius and Flavian were "outside the edifice," "separated from the fold," and "exiled from the Kingdom" inasmuch as they were not in communion with the Roman pontiff, who acknowledged only Paulinus as the rightful occupant of the Antiochene see.It also serves to show that Chrysostom's positive comments about Peter are not evidence of papalism in his views.
By receiving baptism and ordination at their hands, Chrysostom was declaring that he recognized them as the proper bishops in succession from and under the jurisdiction of the see of Antioch. While preaching at his tomb, Chrysostom referenced Meletius as a saint, and said of Flavian that he was not only the successor of Peter, but also the rightful heir of Peter to the see of Antioch. Chrysostom could not have been clearer in his repudiation of Paulinus whom Rome had declared to be the bishop of Antioch. (See his Homily II in Migne PG 52:86).
In similar fashion, when contrary to the canons Paulinus consecrated Evagrius to be his successor upon his death in AD 389, Chrysostom actively declined to recognize him as such, and emphatically warned the people of Antioch against joining the body which recognized Evagrius as bishop.
Moreover, Chrysostom makes reference to this in a sermon delivered in AD 395...
Chrysostom:
I speak not of you that are present, but of those who are deserting from us. The act is adultery. And if ye bear not to hear these things of them, neither should ye of us. There must be breach of the law either on the one side or the other. If then thou hast these suspicions concerning me, I am ready to retire from my office, and resign it to whomsoever ye may choose. Only let the Church be one. But if I have been lawfully made and consecrated, entreat those who have contrary to the law mounted the episcopal throne to resign it.NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 11, next to the last paragraph.
It wasn't until after his consecration in AD 398 to the see of Constantinople by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, that Chrysostom entered into communion with Rome.
Now, most Roman Catholic apologists are not familiar with this information regarding the circumstances of Chrysostom's baptism and ordinations, but his "orders" as such are denied as proper according to the requirements of Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum. I think this alone proves that there were in Chrysostom's day other groups claiming to be every bit as much "Catholic," but nonetheless out of communion with Rome.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Gospel for Islam
In the following video, Dr. White provides a gospel presentation aimed at trying to reach Muslim listeners.
If you have Muslim friends or relatives, consider either providing this to them, or sharing the gospel with them yourself, using this as an aid in your effort.
-TurretinFan
If you have Muslim friends or relatives, consider either providing this to them, or sharing the gospel with them yourself, using this as an aid in your effort.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Maybe Hubner Needs to Look Up "Shill" in a Dictionary
Jamin Hubner responds to my recent post by writing:
In the meantime, let me reword my sentence in terms he is more liable to understand: "using a source that is Hamas propaganda (or is written by a Hamas propagandist) is using a bad source."
Later on in the same post, Jamin wrote:
But again, let me put this in terms that Jamin cannot help but grasp. Suppose that the work is a work by Adolph Hitler. Am I incapable of knowing what Hitler's intention was in writing Mein Kampf, unless I read the book? Is that the only way for me to find out? Or can I read a review of the book? Can I maybe possibly get some idea by reading the Cliff's notes? Or is that a hopeless endeavor?
Moreover, since Steve's claim was about the man, isn't it sufficient to read some of his shorter pieces to see that he's a propagandist or "shill" and not simply a relatively neutral source like a dictionary? Of course it is.
Surely Jamin is not so dense as to really imagine that the only way one can learn about the content of a book is by personally reading that book or that the only way one can find out about an author's character is by reading that particular book.
Right? So, then Jamin should (a) either address the issue of the credibility of his source by addressing the evidence Steve already presented against it or (b) acknowledge that Steve was correct about the source bias problem of that particular source.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Hubner's concluding paragraph begins: "All of this is a distraction from the truth and the main concerns that I’ve tried and contiually [sic] try to raise ... ." But the problem is that Steve has seemingly caught him trying to promote his view about Israel by citing/promoting a work that is itself little better than Hamas propaganda. Perhaps I agree with Hubner's ultimately conclusions about Israel, but that doesn't change the fact that Hubner is shooting himself in the foot by citing to Mein Kampf for a supposedly historical report of facts of the bad things Jewish people have done. Oh, wait. Of course he didn't do that. He would know better than to do that. But he doesn't see the problem with the source he did cite (the one Steve described as a shill for Hamas) regarding the bad things the Israelis have supposedly done. Even if the MK truthfully reports the facts of a particular instance, there is a good reason one wouldn't cite it.
Turretinfan criticizes a recent post, saying, “ using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source.” It seems Tur is suggesting that because a source is used as a Hamas shill, than in and of itself means the source is bad.The only way that Jamin Hubner's post makes any sense is if he does not understand what the word "shill" means. Perhaps he should look it up in ... a dictionary.
But, obviously this isn’t true. Hamas could use a dictionary and that doesn’t mean the dictionary is “bad source.” It is ironic that in the procesess [sic] of trying to reveal a fallacy, brother Tur seems to commit one (a source fallacy).
In the meantime, let me reword my sentence in terms he is more liable to understand: "using a source that is Hamas propaganda (or is written by a Hamas propagandist) is using a bad source."
Later on in the same post, Jamin wrote:
We have to ask in situations like these: how does the author intend the source to be used? Since Tur (and Hays, who made the original accusation about Burge’s work being pro-Hamas) have not even read the original source themselves, they are incapable of even knowing what the author’s intention really is. Hence the lack of any kind of refutation of this supposed Hamas-shill source (Burge’s Whose Land?), and hence the lack of any demonstration that Burge and/or his work is actually a shill or Hamas – and to what extent and in what sense he/his work is.Yes, in fact, people are capable of knowing what an author's intention was without having read the original book. Steve Hays addressed this point a long time ago. We can read reviews of books and learn all sorts of things that way. In fact Steve Hays has already thoroughly demonstrated this point. Jamin hasn't bothered to address any of the reviews Steve proffered.
But again, let me put this in terms that Jamin cannot help but grasp. Suppose that the work is a work by Adolph Hitler. Am I incapable of knowing what Hitler's intention was in writing Mein Kampf, unless I read the book? Is that the only way for me to find out? Or can I read a review of the book? Can I maybe possibly get some idea by reading the Cliff's notes? Or is that a hopeless endeavor?
Moreover, since Steve's claim was about the man, isn't it sufficient to read some of his shorter pieces to see that he's a propagandist or "shill" and not simply a relatively neutral source like a dictionary? Of course it is.
Surely Jamin is not so dense as to really imagine that the only way one can learn about the content of a book is by personally reading that book or that the only way one can find out about an author's character is by reading that particular book.
Right? So, then Jamin should (a) either address the issue of the credibility of his source by addressing the evidence Steve already presented against it or (b) acknowledge that Steve was correct about the source bias problem of that particular source.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Hubner's concluding paragraph begins: "All of this is a distraction from the truth and the main concerns that I’ve tried and contiually [sic] try to raise ... ." But the problem is that Steve has seemingly caught him trying to promote his view about Israel by citing/promoting a work that is itself little better than Hamas propaganda. Perhaps I agree with Hubner's ultimately conclusions about Israel, but that doesn't change the fact that Hubner is shooting himself in the foot by citing to Mein Kampf for a supposedly historical report of facts of the bad things Jewish people have done. Oh, wait. Of course he didn't do that. He would know better than to do that. But he doesn't see the problem with the source he did cite (the one Steve described as a shill for Hamas) regarding the bad things the Israelis have supposedly done. Even if the MK truthfully reports the facts of a particular instance, there is a good reason one wouldn't cite it.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Mark Driscoll vs. Genesis 7:1
Mark Driscoll has a sermon segment (I hope it is just a segment) regarding Noah. The thesis is that Noah wasn't a righteous man.
Driscoll makes some good points about the fact that Noah was saved by grace, the same way Moses, Abraham, and David were saved. However, in his eagerness to make his point, he overlooks a crucial verse:
Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
And this, at first blush, appears to have reference to this:
Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
Scripture says Noah was a righteous man. So, we can too. That does not mean that Noah was saved because he was righteous. It simply means that all those children's Bibles, which say "Noah was a righteous man," are not in need of white-out, Sharpies, or whatever Driscoll has in mind - at least not until the moral of the story.
In fact, the New Testament enlightens:
2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
And perhaps more significantly:
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
So, while much of Driscoll's point about salvation by grace through faith is right, his application is wrong.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: A dear reader points out that Driscoll goes on to discuss (in a portion of the complete sermon just after the video clip above):
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
This does soften my view of Driscoll's comments considerably. I still don't like the clip, but I think the clipper would have been better to include a little more. With this greater context, it appears that while it sounds like Driscoll is saying Noah wasn't righteous, he is just guilty of careless expression.
Driscoll makes some good points about the fact that Noah was saved by grace, the same way Moses, Abraham, and David were saved. However, in his eagerness to make his point, he overlooks a crucial verse:
Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
And this, at first blush, appears to have reference to this:
Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
Scripture says Noah was a righteous man. So, we can too. That does not mean that Noah was saved because he was righteous. It simply means that all those children's Bibles, which say "Noah was a righteous man," are not in need of white-out, Sharpies, or whatever Driscoll has in mind - at least not until the moral of the story.
In fact, the New Testament enlightens:
2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
And perhaps more significantly:
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
So, while much of Driscoll's point about salvation by grace through faith is right, his application is wrong.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: A dear reader points out that Driscoll goes on to discuss (in a portion of the complete sermon just after the video clip above):
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
This does soften my view of Driscoll's comments considerably. I still don't like the clip, but I think the clipper would have been better to include a little more. With this greater context, it appears that while it sounds like Driscoll is saying Noah wasn't righteous, he is just guilty of careless expression.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est - Debunked Some More
Advocates of the papacy frequently allege that Augustine said, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." Augustine did not say this. My friend Dr. White debunked this urban legend some time ago. Others have also debunked it. I'd like to add my own two cents.
After all, I've recently encountered a couple of advocates of the papacy who argue that, although Augustine didn't say "Roma locuta est," he did say "causa finita est" (the cause is ended). This is true.
Here's the relevant portion from Sermon 131 in context:
1) The appeal is to settled conciliar authority (not papal authority as such). So, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" is not a very accurate summary. A more accurate summary would be "two councils have spoken - the case is closed." That's not to say that the rescripts weren't from Rome - they were.
2) The reference to rescripts is a reference to a response from Rome regarding the decisions of the councils. Such a rescript neither has its own infallibility nor gives infallibility to the decrees of the councils, whether considered by Roman standards of that day or this day.
3) Notice that there were two councils, not just one. This is part of Augustine's point. His point is that, in terms of church court process, continuing this debate is beating a dead horse. He's not saying that two councils is a magic number, just as he's not saying that getting a response from Rome magically makes the conciliar decisions correct.
- TurretinFan
After all, I've recently encountered a couple of advocates of the papacy who argue that, although Augustine didn't say "Roma locuta est," he did say "causa finita est" (the cause is ended). This is true.
Here's the relevant portion from Sermon 131 in context:
Although he did say "the cause is ended," this sound bite doesn't actually help the papal advocate, for at least the following three reasons:
For already two councils have, in this cause, sent letters to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back. The cause is ended: would that the error might some day end! Therefore we admonish so that they may take notice, we teach so that they may be instructed, we pray so that their way be changed.
1) The appeal is to settled conciliar authority (not papal authority as such). So, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" is not a very accurate summary. A more accurate summary would be "two councils have spoken - the case is closed." That's not to say that the rescripts weren't from Rome - they were.
2) The reference to rescripts is a reference to a response from Rome regarding the decisions of the councils. Such a rescript neither has its own infallibility nor gives infallibility to the decrees of the councils, whether considered by Roman standards of that day or this day.
3) Notice that there were two councils, not just one. This is part of Augustine's point. His point is that, in terms of church court process, continuing this debate is beating a dead horse. He's not saying that two councils is a magic number, just as he's not saying that getting a response from Rome magically makes the conciliar decisions correct.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Deedat and Jonah
I just listened to two Ahmed Deedat debates (contra McDowell and contra Douglas), both of which featured a very similar pair of arguments regarding the sign of Jonah. Each debate features both arguments, with largely the same flourishes - though there were some differences.
The first argument is presented with a great deal of showmanship and buildup, but it boils down to this: Jesus said he would be like Jonah, Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale, therefore Jesus could not be dead in the tomb. The flaw of the argument is fairly obvious: Jesus did not say that the similarity was that he would be alive for three days, but that he would be buried for three days.
Matthew 12:39-42
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
As you can see from reading the argument itself, the point is not that Jesus would be alive, but that he would be buried. This argument is about as weak as they come.
The second argument is that Jesus was not in the tomb for three full days and nights, but only only two full nights (Friday and Saturday) and one full day (Saturday). This argument is slightly stronger. Yet it is still problematic.
This argument is premised on understanding Jesus to be using the expression "three days and three nights" to mean "three full days and three full nights." However, that is simply the same term taken from Jonah 1:17, and there is no indication there that the term means precisely 72 hours. Indeed, there is no particular indication from the context of Jonah 1:17 as to what time of day Jonah was cast into the sea. We might surmise it was evening because he had gone to sleep, but the text does not tell us.
What else could the term mean? Well, it could mean "three consecutive days." The places where we find this idiom is in the context of the rain of the flood (40 consecutive days Genesis 7:4 and 12), Moses' fast during the time of the reception of the law and intercession for the people (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9, 11, 18, and 10:10), the fast of the captured slave (1 Samuel 30:12); Elijah's fast on the way to Horeb (1 Kings 19:8); Job's seven days of silence with his friends (Job 2:13); and Jesus forty day fast (Matthew 4:2). In each of these cases, the point of the idiom is the fact of an unbroken succession of days.
Thus, the forty day fast of Jesus (and Moses and Elijah) was not the like fast of the Muslims, who break their fasts in the evening. Instead, it was unbroken. The rain that flooded the whole world was not a month and a third of Seattle-like weather, it was 40 days of constant rain.
We even see a similar usage in the singular:
Esther 4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Isaiah 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Many other passages have the same usage. See Leviticus 8:35, Deuteronomy 28:66, Joshua 1:8, 1 Kings 8:29 and 59, 1 Chronicles 9:33, 2 Chronicles 6:20, Nehemiah 1:6 and 4:9, Psalm 32:4, 42:3, 55:10, and 88:1, Ecclesiastes 8:16, Isaiah 27:3, 60:11, and 62:6, Jeremiah 9:1, 14:17, and 16:13, Lamentations 2:18, Mark 4:27 and 5:5, Luke 2:37 and 18:7, Acts 9:24, 20:31, and 26:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 3:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 1 Timothy 5:5, 2 Timothy 1:3, Revelation 4:8, 7:15, 12:10, and 20:10.
The point is not 24 hour periods, but rather unbroken continuity. Deedat has misinterpreted "three days and three nights" to mean 72 hours, when rather it means three successive days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).
There is more to the rebuttal to Deedat, though. Part of the sign of Jonas is that Jesus is greater than Jonah. In fact, in the Luke account, the days in the tomb are not even mentioned. How was Jonah a sign to the Ninevites? He was like a man who had come back from the dead, having been spit out by the great fish that swallowed him.
Christ however, is much greater than Jonah, in that he really did come back from the dead. Likewise, while Solomon was the wisest man, Jesus is greater than Solomon for Jesus is God.
Luke 11:29-32
And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
If only Deedat had read the Scriptures with eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. But he did not. Dear readers, do not follow his bad example of misunderstanding of the Sacred text. Instead, properly understand the Scriptures and learn from them about the sign given to that adulterous generation and handed down to our adulterous day.
-TurretinFan
P.S. It was interesting to see that Dr. Douglas used some arguments around 1 hour, 42 minutes into the debate regarding the use of skeptics by Muslims - it reminded me of the arguments my friend Dr. White (who pointed me to the McDowell debate) uses.
The first argument is presented with a great deal of showmanship and buildup, but it boils down to this: Jesus said he would be like Jonah, Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale, therefore Jesus could not be dead in the tomb. The flaw of the argument is fairly obvious: Jesus did not say that the similarity was that he would be alive for three days, but that he would be buried for three days.
Matthew 12:39-42
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
As you can see from reading the argument itself, the point is not that Jesus would be alive, but that he would be buried. This argument is about as weak as they come.
The second argument is that Jesus was not in the tomb for three full days and nights, but only only two full nights (Friday and Saturday) and one full day (Saturday). This argument is slightly stronger. Yet it is still problematic.
This argument is premised on understanding Jesus to be using the expression "three days and three nights" to mean "three full days and three full nights." However, that is simply the same term taken from Jonah 1:17, and there is no indication there that the term means precisely 72 hours. Indeed, there is no particular indication from the context of Jonah 1:17 as to what time of day Jonah was cast into the sea. We might surmise it was evening because he had gone to sleep, but the text does not tell us.
What else could the term mean? Well, it could mean "three consecutive days." The places where we find this idiom is in the context of the rain of the flood (40 consecutive days Genesis 7:4 and 12), Moses' fast during the time of the reception of the law and intercession for the people (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9, 11, 18, and 10:10), the fast of the captured slave (1 Samuel 30:12); Elijah's fast on the way to Horeb (1 Kings 19:8); Job's seven days of silence with his friends (Job 2:13); and Jesus forty day fast (Matthew 4:2). In each of these cases, the point of the idiom is the fact of an unbroken succession of days.
Thus, the forty day fast of Jesus (and Moses and Elijah) was not the like fast of the Muslims, who break their fasts in the evening. Instead, it was unbroken. The rain that flooded the whole world was not a month and a third of Seattle-like weather, it was 40 days of constant rain.
We even see a similar usage in the singular:
Esther 4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Isaiah 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Many other passages have the same usage. See Leviticus 8:35, Deuteronomy 28:66, Joshua 1:8, 1 Kings 8:29 and 59, 1 Chronicles 9:33, 2 Chronicles 6:20, Nehemiah 1:6 and 4:9, Psalm 32:4, 42:3, 55:10, and 88:1, Ecclesiastes 8:16, Isaiah 27:3, 60:11, and 62:6, Jeremiah 9:1, 14:17, and 16:13, Lamentations 2:18, Mark 4:27 and 5:5, Luke 2:37 and 18:7, Acts 9:24, 20:31, and 26:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 3:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 1 Timothy 5:5, 2 Timothy 1:3, Revelation 4:8, 7:15, 12:10, and 20:10.
The point is not 24 hour periods, but rather unbroken continuity. Deedat has misinterpreted "three days and three nights" to mean 72 hours, when rather it means three successive days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).
There is more to the rebuttal to Deedat, though. Part of the sign of Jonas is that Jesus is greater than Jonah. In fact, in the Luke account, the days in the tomb are not even mentioned. How was Jonah a sign to the Ninevites? He was like a man who had come back from the dead, having been spit out by the great fish that swallowed him.
Christ however, is much greater than Jonah, in that he really did come back from the dead. Likewise, while Solomon was the wisest man, Jesus is greater than Solomon for Jesus is God.
Luke 11:29-32
And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
If only Deedat had read the Scriptures with eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. But he did not. Dear readers, do not follow his bad example of misunderstanding of the Sacred text. Instead, properly understand the Scriptures and learn from them about the sign given to that adulterous generation and handed down to our adulterous day.
-TurretinFan
P.S. It was interesting to see that Dr. Douglas used some arguments around 1 hour, 42 minutes into the debate regarding the use of skeptics by Muslims - it reminded me of the arguments my friend Dr. White (who pointed me to the McDowell debate) uses.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Google+ Integration?
Blogger seems to indicate that there is some new integration with Google+. So, if you are one of the millions of people who use Google+, you should be able to get my blog posts in my Google+ stream, if you have appropriately included me in your circle(s). We will see how that goes.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Hubner Compares Self to O. Palmer Robertson
Evidently, Jamin Hubner and O. Palmer Robertson share a similar view regarding Israel on some points. Hubner seems to think that consistency demands that if he (Hubner) is a "dupe for the jihadists" and is "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments," then the same must be true of Robertson.
There's a fundamental flaw in Hubner's reasoning. Hubner has some "main points" in mind, and he thinks that Robertson shares his opinion on those main points. Perhaps Robertson does. Yet it wasn't the "main points" with respect to which "dupe for the jihadists" and "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments" were used.
In fact, Hubner himself had complained that his critics were not addressing his main points. So, one might think he would realize that it doesn't resuscitate his use of bad sources and bad arguments to find someone who agrees with the points he was trying to make.
Let me try to simplify the point for Hubner: if you argue Man is mortal; Socrates is an ox; therefore Socrates is mortal, you have reasoned fallaciously and from an untrue premise. If you come along and say "Einstein agrees with me that Socrates is mortal," that does not revitalize either your claim that Socrates is an ox, or your fallacious reasoning. Consistency doesn't demand that we criticize Einstein, because Einstein didn't reach his conclusion the same way you did. Capisce?
Analogously, using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source and using an invalid argument that supports Arab claims is still supporting Arabs with unsound arguments, whether or not O. Palmer Robertson thinks that “Never can the promise of the land be properly claimed by those who fail to exercise true faith and faithfulness in the Redeemer provided by the Lord of the Covenant.”
So, when Hubner asks, in his article: "…But, for some reason I don’t suspect Robertson and those who endorsed his book (RC Sproul, Robert Reymond, Richard B. Gaffin) will earn any terrorist associations, titles of mockery or titles of supporting any particular race (e.g. Arabs) for saying the same things I’ve said. I wonder why?" The reasons may be several: they don't actually say the same thing, they don't say it the same way, and they don't have the same emotional reaction to criticism of their arguments and sources.
- TurretinFan
There's a fundamental flaw in Hubner's reasoning. Hubner has some "main points" in mind, and he thinks that Robertson shares his opinion on those main points. Perhaps Robertson does. Yet it wasn't the "main points" with respect to which "dupe for the jihadists" and "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments" were used.
In fact, Hubner himself had complained that his critics were not addressing his main points. So, one might think he would realize that it doesn't resuscitate his use of bad sources and bad arguments to find someone who agrees with the points he was trying to make.
Let me try to simplify the point for Hubner: if you argue Man is mortal; Socrates is an ox; therefore Socrates is mortal, you have reasoned fallaciously and from an untrue premise. If you come along and say "Einstein agrees with me that Socrates is mortal," that does not revitalize either your claim that Socrates is an ox, or your fallacious reasoning. Consistency doesn't demand that we criticize Einstein, because Einstein didn't reach his conclusion the same way you did. Capisce?
Analogously, using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source and using an invalid argument that supports Arab claims is still supporting Arabs with unsound arguments, whether or not O. Palmer Robertson thinks that “Never can the promise of the land be properly claimed by those who fail to exercise true faith and faithfulness in the Redeemer provided by the Lord of the Covenant.”
So, when Hubner asks, in his article: "…But, for some reason I don’t suspect Robertson and those who endorsed his book (RC Sproul, Robert Reymond, Richard B. Gaffin) will earn any terrorist associations, titles of mockery or titles of supporting any particular race (e.g. Arabs) for saying the same things I’ve said. I wonder why?" The reasons may be several: they don't actually say the same thing, they don't say it the same way, and they don't have the same emotional reaction to criticism of their arguments and sources.
- TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
