6/30/04:
Calvin on the Roman Priesthood
David King provided the following citation this evening:
If those who
profess to return to the right way feel hurt by these
requirements, they are greatly mistaken. For it is
impossible to accept them as Christian pastors if they
have not renounced the papal priesthood in which they
were ordained to sacrifice Jesus Christ, which is a
blasphemy worthy of the highest detestation. In
addition, they must solemnly promise to abstain
henceforth from all superstitions and pollutions which
are repugnant to the simplicity of the gospel. For how
can they administer the Holy Supper unless they have
separated from the abominations of the Mass? Moreover,
they cannot be ministers of baptism unless they have
rejected the confusions by which it has been corrupted.
In sum, the church cannot accept them as pastors if they
do not feel obliged to do their duty. John Calvin,
Calvin's Ecclesiastical Advice, trans. Mary Beaty
and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1991), p. 59.
The Uber Bible!
When I travel I love to show
pastors the Uber Bible. The look on their faces as
they hold it is just priceless. What on earth is the
Uber Bible, you ask? Well, it is the NASB Large Print
UltraThin Bible from the Lockman Foundation. What
makes it so special? Well, as I have said to a number
of folks, "In the still of the night, if you listen real
closely, you can still hear the cover mooing." I have
simply never felt a thicker, softer, more luxurious leather
cover than on this Bible. It simply hangs in your
hand. Combine a great translation with readable text
and a tremendous leather cover and you have the Uber Bible.
Now, items with the title "Uber" in their name tend to be
uber expensive as well, so if you are looking for an
inexpensive Bible, this isn't the one for you. But if
you are looking to invest in a Bible that will make you
smile every time you touch its cover (oh yes, THE leather
smell is wonderful---only folks who love leather bound books
understand what I mean), this is the one for you. This
also makes about the best gift you could ever give someone
for their ordination, or for an anniversary. Retails
for $149.99,
we have it for $120.00.
6/29/04: Home Sweet Home
Ah, there is no place like home.
Yes, we plan on a DL for Thursday, normal time.
And yes, I've seen the stuff about the new
"translation" of the Bible in England. I won't even
help advertise such a joke by linking to the website.
These kinds of inane publications end up sitting on a dusty
shelf in a library somewhere. God's people just don't
buy into such foolishness.
In fact, that is a great comfort to me as I survey the
"theological landscape" of today's "Christendom." I
often lose sight of a simple truth: while the range of odd,
off-the-wall "isms" and new movements seems to be
proliferating as fast as some newly discovered alien
organism in an old Star Trek episode, God's Spirit is very
much active in leading His people to His truth, even if in
that process God allows a lot of "noise" to exist outside
the Spirit-borne fellowship of the Church in a day of
apostasy and error. One engages in apologetic work not
out of a sense of desperation ("Bar the doors, the enemy is
at the gate!") but out of a desire to honor God's truth,
both in the edification of the saints and in the conversion
of sinners. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that
God is still on His throne, and though we mourn any
promulgation of falsehood, we also know God has a purpose in
it all.
6/28/04: DialUp My Foot
I'm sorry, but I refuse to pay
$1.25 for five lousy minutes on a local call, and then $0.15
per minute thereafter. But that is what the hotel
across from Central Park wanted (I guess since it is right
next to the Trump International Tower that explains it), so
I didn't even try. And with preaching duties on the
Lord's Day, this is the first chance I've had to get back on
line. I'm ready to go home. This living out of a
suitcase has grown very, very old.
The celebration of the commissioning of the King James
Bible in 1604, co-sponsored by the Nida Institute for
Biblical Scholarship, the American Bible Society, and the
Society of Biblical Literature, took place June 25-26 at St.
Peter's Church in Manhattan. Some of the most
memorable presentations (at least to me) included John
Kohlenberger's discussion of the textual sources of the KJV;
Dr. Lynne Long's "Translating the Bible into English: 7th to
17th Centuries" (she read a section of Caedmon's poetry in
Anglo-Saxon, which, combined with her natural British
accent, was most interesting); Dr. Barclay Newman's "On the
Light Side: The Preface and Notes to the Original KJV"; and
Dr. Kenneth Curtis' fine presentation on "The Hampton Court:
Mandates and Context." It was an honor to be asked to
speak along with such notables, and I hope my discussion of
the KJV Only tradition in the United States was useful to
those in attendance. Papers will be published at a
later date, and I will try to remember to note when that
material might be published.
This Lord's Day took me to the New Hyde Park Baptist
Church, Pastor Gary Scott. I spoke on Acts 13:42-48 in
the morning service (and was privileged to witness three
testimonies of faith in baptism), and in the evening I gave
my presentation on Mormonism via PowerPoint. The LDS
Church opened its new Manhattan Temple recently, so there is
more interest in Mormonism than there has been in the New
York area in the past. In preparation for the morning
service I noted once again the parallel between 13:46 and
13:48; the Jews "repudiated" the word of God (avpwqei/sqe,
to push aside, ignore, refuse to listen to) and, by so
doing, judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (a
conclusion they would have rejected, of course, but this is
Paul's divine interpretation of their actions). In
contrast, the Gentiles rejoiced at the word of the Lord.
But the second half of the contrast is very interesting, for
though our English translations tend to place the verb at
the end of the clause, in Greek the verb comes first ("they
believed") and the controversial descriptive phrase comes
after. Who believed? Those who had been
appointed to eternal life. The number of attempts to
get around the meaning of the phrase is large, but the
meaning is clear: while both groups had heard the same
message in the same context in the same language based upon
the same Scriptural texts, it was not that one group was
"better" or "more spiritual" so that they believed: no,
those who believed did so because they had been (graciously)
appointed to eternal life (just as Lydia later in the
narrative).
6/23/04: Yeah, Still Here!
Apologies for being AWOL, but
Monday the phones went out at my hotel, and that put me way
behind. I've been updating PowerPoint presentations,
one for tonight on the Witnesses (did you know their baptism
rate continues to decline, down 20% since 1999?) and then a
pretty much fully new presentation for the American Bible
Society on Saturday. Google's image search sure was
helpful in tracking down new images for that KJV
presentation! I have now incorporated two great Gail
Riplinger clips, including her explanation of "Acrostic
Algebra" as well (for those who don't go back as far as the
ol' Gail Riplinger days, you might want to
listen to this).
If there is anyone left to see it (I'm the last one to
speak), they should find it at least mildly interesting.
There have been some comments made over the past few
days that just beg for reply (no, I'm not talking
about the mockery of the perspicuity of Scripture, nor the
importance and centrality of exegesis, nor the constant
straw-man dishonesty of some of the more radical NCRs [New
Counter Reformationists, my thanks to David King for the
terminology]), especially about what it means to practice
"radical biblicism" and what Paul was saying in Galatians
chapter five. But it may be a few days before I can
get to those things, as the celebration of the beginning of
the translation of the KJV begins tomorrow, my wife arrives,
we celebrate our twenty second wedding anniversary in
Manhattan, and hence, well, priorities are priorities.
But for your reading pleasure, I offer the following from
William Cunningham (as cited just today by Pastor King in
another context):
And we find in
the Reformers in discussing these matters with their Romish
opponents, accommodated themselves to this mode of putting
the case; and having thus adult baptism chiefly in their
view, were led sometimes to speak as if they regarded
baptism and regeneration as substantially identical. They
certainly did not mean to assert or concede the popish
principle, of an invariable connection between the outward
ordinance and the spiritual blessing, for it is quite
certain, and can be conclusively established, that they
rejected this. ...They never intended to teach baptismal
regeneration, and they have said nothing that appears to
teach it, or that could be supposed to teach it, by any
except those who were utterly ignorant of the whole course
of discussion of these subjects as it was then conducted.
The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation
(Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust), pp. 248, 249
6/19/04: Back in the Big Apple
Early this AM (and when you are on
PDT and you fly to EDT, 5AM is actually 2AM, so the term
"early" takes on new meaning) I got up so I could head up to
the graduation ceremonies of a small Christian school in
upstate New York. It was an honor to speak, if only
briefly, at the graduation.
So I'm back on the Island now, getting ready to preach
three times tomorrow (yes, believe it or not, the calendar
page is up-to-date). I'm especially looking forward to
tomorrow evening's sermon on the New Covenant. If
everyone would just take Hebrews seriously, we would have a
much more united front in proclaiming the perfection of
Christ as Savior. The intrusion of simple tradition
has led to utterly unnecessary division.
6/17/04: Wow, A Book Comes Out EARLY
Odd to have a book arrive prior to its publication date, but
here it is! Perspectives on Church Government: Five
Views of Church Polity from Broadman/Holman publishers
is edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman. It
comes in at 350 pages, and presents the viewpoints of Daniel
Akin (Single Pastor Model), James Leo Garrett, Jr.,
(Congregationalism), Paul F. M. Zahl (Anglicanism), Robert
Reymond (the Presbyterian Form), and yours truly. I
presented the Plurality of Elders view. We each wrote
a 2,500 (max) word review/response to each of the other
presentations. For those of you who have wondered
about how Reformed Baptists could believe in a plurality of
elders while at the same time not believing in a
presbytery/hierarchy, well, here's your chance to find out.
I think the interaction between myself and Dr. Reymond is
most useful for those examining this issue.
Rich will be getting our order in today, so you should
see a link appear in the right hand column quite soon.
Yes, you could probably buy it from Amazon or WalMart, but
Amazon and WalMart do not provide you with this blog, the
resources, the debates, or The Dividing Line.
:-)
6/16/04: de Sales Revisited
This interaction is
simply one of the clearest the "blog wars" has produced on
the vast difference between rCism and a vision based upon
biblical teaching concerning the centrality of the gospel.
A must read. Update:
In responding to a Roman Catholic
correspondent, Mr. Johnson wrote, "The only thing I would
say in response to your comment is that hopefully you and
others of like mind can remember that this was written to
respond to a Reformed Baptist and others who do not see the
heroism and dedication of a man like St. Francis de Sales as
you do." Summary of rCism as illustrated by the de
Sales episode: "We can, and should, appreciate
the 'heroism' of enemies of the gospel who enslave people to
falsehood and rob them of eternal life, as long as they are
baptized properly."
I give Mr. Johnson the last word, as the substance of
the reply says more than I could ever hope.
6/15/04: Owen locuta est; causa finita est
For those who have never been in the midst of a debate on
what Augustine meant in Sermon 131,
those words may not be familiar. But they were
suggested by the PlaidMan, and I thought they fit very well.
As Alexander continues his crazed rampage, the picture he
paints of me becomes ever more distorted, so that all who
actually know me now simply laugh in derision at the
caricature he is so proud of "beating like a red-headed
stepchild." A wise friend has diagnosed a pretty much
fatal case of Napoleon's Disease here. Everyone step
back, the meltdown could be messy, sorta like in the Matrix
(the plural of which is?)...
Francis de Sales: Patron Saint of
Anti-Calvinism
For years I've heard about him. Tan Book
Publishers (super conservative Roman Catholic publisher)
still prints his book, The Catholic Controversy
(Bethany House named my book, hence, no, there is no
connection), a series of tracts he wrote that are
specifically aimed at converting Calvinists to Roman
Catholicism. Many a modern Roman Catholic has referred
me to de Sales' work as the ultimate refutation of the
"folly" of Calvinism. It is a manifesto of Tridentine
Romanism: denial of all the solas, promotion of the
sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, etc. The book claims
de Sales converted nearly 72,000 who had been Reformed back
to Holy Mother Church. That kind of claim reminds me
of some of the stories I've heard about Marian miracles, but
the fact remains that de Sales represents the antithesis of
Reformed faith from top to bottom. Calvinists have
every reason to be deeply offended at de Sales and
his writings.
It is truly sad, then, to find the following quotation
posted proudly under a quote from Chesterton: "'We
must recapture Christianity...we must recapture Geneva.'
Francis de Sales" Now, that would make perfect sense
on a website dedicated to Roman Catholic apologetics.
But this is on the blog of a man who continues to insist he
is "Reformed." That would be like my citing Arius
favorably, "We must do away with Nicea." Or, citing
Pelagius favorably, "May the memory of Augustine be buried
in the depths of the sea." Or citing Mohammad, "We
must retake the West for Allah." Etc. De Sales'
heresy would make the Judaizers' in Galatia blush for its
boldness, so to have such a quotation on one's site makes as
much sense as my favorably quoting Joseph Smith's teachings
on the plurality of gods while professing myself to be a
passionate monotheist.
The huge irony here is that for some odd reason, when
others observe these things and go, "Goodness, someone who
quotes Chesterton, reads and applauds Congar, constantly
rags on the Reformed churches, says Reformed communions are
guilty of 'equal' idolatry with Rome, says the Pope has been
used by God to protect the church, and posts de Sales' words
about converting Geneva back to Holy Mother Church, may just
well be on their way to Rome themselves," there are many who
are offended at such "groundless speculation"!
Leaves me wondering, too.
6/13/04: Love Free Online Books?
I do too, especially since
RepliGo works so wonderfully on my
Palm Tungsten T3. Confused by all the New
Perspective stuff? Want another great resource?
Here is Phil Eveson's work, The Great Exchange.
It looks like a larger version of this is either available
or will soon be available. In either case, this web
version contains a lot of good background information.
If you can't stand reading on a Palm or a screen, well,
track down the printed version. :-)
rC's Explode in
Self-Congratulations: Dozens Hurt
In the realm of the theological blogosphere today the
conjunction of the great luminaries of reformed Catholicism
collided in what observers called a "near black hole
incident" wherein TGE and Alexander the Coppersmith piled
laud and congratulations upon l0g0s for his stunning ability
to take a comment about my consistency in holding to one
particular view, ignore that context, and compare it with
the argumentation of homosexuals! However, something
went wrong, and the resultant explosion was...less than
pleasant to observe.
Seriously, I had just hoped, for l0g0s's sake, that his
reply would just scroll off into the sunset, but the
addition of commentary by the already noted participants
precluded that kind ending to the exchange. The irony
is that both TGE and AtC
posted comments that, if they are at all consistent,
will force them to likewise ravage Dr. Greg Bahnsen's
comments, which I link below. I find it utterly
providential that Dr. Bahnsen mentioned the Mormons in his
response (I had not heard this clip till last night, since
the link had been sent to me while I was traveling, and I
could not obtain the archive file over dialup). I do
wonder what ruminations will now appear as a result, or will
the rC's ignore the citation?
Update: The
explosions have continued unabated; I've been beaten
like a red-headed step child by the Terminator of the
theological battlefield (which would be really bad, had such
a battle ever taken place---seems some folks are so excited
they are starting to hallucinate), Alpha and Omega
Ministries is doomed (evidently for doing the same
things we've done since 1983), and a few folks have posted
simply classic comments that prove that 1) there are still
wordsmiths amongst us, and 2) there are folks who see
through the smoke and mirrors to the reality. However,
most telling are the "replies" to the Bahnsen quote.
Telling, very telling.
Justification by Faith, Out of Date?
by Benjamin B.
Warfield
(1851-1921)
The following
short essay was originally published in the The Christian
Irishman, Dublin, May 1911, p. 71. The electronic edition of
this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for
Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may
be freely copied and distributed.
Sometimes
we are told that Justification by Faith is "out of date."
That would be a pity, if it were true. What it would mean
would be that the way of salvation was closed and "no
thoroughfare" nailed up over the barriers. There is no
justification for sinful men except by faith. The works of a
sinful man will, of course, be as sinful as he is, and
nothing but condemnation can be built on them. Where can he
get works upon which he can found his hope of
justification,, except from Another? His hope of
Justification, remember—that is, of being pronounced
righteous by God. Can God pronounce him righteous except on
the ground of works that are righteous? Where can a sinful
man get works that are righteous? Surely, not from himself;
for, is he not a sinner, and all his works as sinful as he
is? He must go out of himself, then, to find works which he
can offer to God as righteous. And where will he find such
works except in Christ? Or how will he
make them his own except by faith in Christ?
Justification by Faith, we see, is not to be set in
contradiction to justification by Works. It is set in
contradiction only to justification by our Own Works. It is
justification by Christ's Works. The whole question,
accordingly, is whether we can hope to be received into
God's favor on the ground of what we do ourselves, or only
on the ground of what Christ does for us. If we expect to be
received on the ground of what we do ourselves-that is what
is called Justification by Works. If on the ground of what
Christ has done for us-that is what is meant by
Justification by Faith. Justification by Faith means, that
is to say, that we look to Christ and to him alone for
salvation, and come to God pleading Christ's death and
righteousness as the ground of our hope to be received into
his favor. If Justification by Faith is out of date, that
means, then, that salvation by Christ is out of date. There
is nothing, in that case, left to us but that each man must
just do the best he can to save himself.
Justification by Faith does not mean, then, salvation
by believing things instead of by doing right. It means
pleading the merits of Christ before the throne of grace
instead of our own merits. It may be doing right to believe
things, and doing right is certainly right. The trouble with
pleading our own merits before God is not that merits of our
own would not be acceptable to God. The trouble is that we
haven't any merits of our own to plead before God. Adam,
before his fall, had merits of his own, and because he had
merits of his own he was, in his own person, acceptable to
God. He didn't need Another to stand between him and God,
whose merits he could plead. And, therefore, there was no
talk of his being Justified by Faith. But we are not like
Adam before the fall; we are sinners and have no merits of
our own. If we are to be justified at all, it must be on the
ground of the merits of Another, whose merits can be made
ours by faith. And that is the reason why God sent his Only
Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not
perish but have everlasting life. If we do not believe in
him, obviously we must perish. But if we believe in him, we
shall not perish but have everlasting life. That is just
Justification by Faith. Justification by Faith is nothing
other than obtaining everlasting life by believing in
Christ. If Justification by Faith is out of date, then is
salvation through Christ out of date. And as there is none
other name under heaven, given among men, wherein we must be
saved, if salvation through Christ is out of date then is
salvation itself out of date. Surely, in a world of sinful
men, needing salvation, this would be a great pity.
6/12/04: Greg Bahnsen: Rome is not a True Church
This audio
from a Q&A session was sent to me recently, and it is quite
interesting to hear Bahnsen defend the Southern Presbyterian
view, and specifically to defend the concept of offering
baptism to a person who has come to Christ out of Roman
Catholicism, for Rome, Bahnsen well knew, is not a true
church. I wonder if the "reformed Catholics" will put
Bahnsen in the Neo-Donatist Anabaptistic camp along with all
the other Southern Presbyterians?
Another Response from Johnson that falls below the level
of warranting blog space.
Heading North of the Border.
Here is a
flyer for the upcoming seminar in Toronto.
6/11/04:
I am Truly Naïve
Downright
simplistic, I guess. I am just now starting to realize how
very naïve I have been over the years. I had this very
strange idea that when someone said, “Hey, I love your work,
and stand with you in believing we must hold firm to the
doctrines of grace, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the
centrality of justification,” that that actually meant
something beyond mere words. I thought it meant the person
who said that (or wrote that) meant the same things by those
words that I do. See, when I say those things, they mean
something deep down inside. Those words reflect
deep-seated convictions, beliefs so closely related to one
another, so firmly intertwined, that to deny a part of them
is to deny them all. I thought those who said those things
agreed with me about the vital importance of the inspiration
and inerrancy of the Scriptures, the nature of God’s Word as
the final authority, the very voice of God. I thought they
had the same kind of passion I do for the sovereignty of
God, a passion based upon the plain teachings of Scripture,
yes, but one that also has deep connections to every aspect
of my life and ministry. And, for some odd reason, I have
often said (mistakenly now, I guess!), that it is just not
possible that anyone could truly see the glory of
justification, the meaning of “peace” with God, the utter
dependence that is mine upon the righteousness of another,
the “great exchange” wherein my sin is imputed to Christ,
and His righteousness, in its fullness, is imputed to me,
and having seen these truths, embrace some dry husk of
heresy in its place. How naïve I was!
But, I have now learned my lesson. As I have watched
with deep sadness the unity that once grew from a common
confession of the doctrines of grace replaced by all sorts
of new “isms” and viewpoints, I have come to recognize that
just because someone says they believe these divine truths
to be true it simply does not follow that those truths have
been burned into their souls with a divine fire borne of
faith. Such must be the case, for anyone willing to give up
those beliefs for some new theological bauble could not
possibly have had that Spirit-written dedication to what
those truths mean. Even Calvinism, I guess, can be
given lip service that does not reflect an inner
appropriation of what it really means to see yourself as the
perfectly redeemed creature dependent totally upon the
sovereign mercy and grace of God in Jesus Christ. Let the
Lord remove His hand of protection so as to bring judgment
upon a nation or a culture, and all of a sudden you find
those who had once professed such a faith running after all
sorts of variations, isms, or just openly denying what they
once professed. The result is exactly what a nation or
culture under judgment deserves: confusion.
Ironically, as I sit here typing these words, I can
think of four, maybe even five, different groups of
folks---people with whom I once had various levels of
communion---who will automatically assume I am referring to
them. That is not only ironic, it is simply sad,
since those words might well apply to a very wide
variety of folks these days.
So what do you do in times like these? If these truths
have become a constituent part of the very essence of your
faith, you will continue in them, despite the resistance of
those who once stood with you and spoke as if they would
always be there. You pray God will guard your faith, guard
your fellowship, lift up your elders (or lift you up, if you
happen to be in the eldership of the church), and keep you
faithful even if you have to “count the cost” as truth
becomes ever more the minority position in a culture under
the judgment of God (remember, a solid, unified, healthy,
discerning church is a blessing upon a nation: and when a
nation gets to the point of being so hardened, so seared in
its conscience that even national tragedies do not result in
any level of repentance, God’s people know judgment is being
revealed from heaven).
Utterly Amazing "Reformed Catholic"
Statement of the Day:
On the
papacy, Reformed Catholics have not automatically ruled
out the continuing historical institution of the papacy.
Many of us see it as a providential tool of God through
the centuries designed to aid in protecting and guiding
the Church.
6/9/04:
Quick Summary of the Dialogue on rCism with Mr. Johnson:
1) I
do not know if Mr. Johnson is just being difficult or just
does not understand much of what I am saying, but it would
be a great exercise in futility to go back over each of the
many "no, you completely missed the entire point of what I
just said" portions of his response.
2) As someone in our chat channel summarized one aspect, "We
cannot determine the validity of someone's baptism by
parsing their doctrine, but we can determine the validity of
a person's baptism by parsing their doctrine." Either it is
wrong to examine one's profession of faith, or the theology
of the ones thusly baptizing, or the history of the church
doing the baptism, or it isn't. The "cake/eat cake" problem
here is Mr. Johnson's, not mine. I have been consistent:
without the gospel, it isn't Christian. Period, end of
debate.
3) Seemingly one can determine that the origins of Mormonism
are improper, yet, the issues relating to Rome's claims of
authority (and all the problems inherent thereto) are swept
aside and Rome is granted existence, seemingly, to at least
the second century. By what standard are we to operate here?
We are not told. Was the CRE started "properly" in Mr.
Johnson's view? Has he examined each modern denomination for
"proper starting procedures" so as to know if their baptism
is valid? Hard to give much credence to this kind of
concept.
4) Johnson says my ecclesiology is "defective." I simply
note that next month a new book will be released from
Broadman/Holman in which five views of church government
will be presented. Robert Reymond presented the Presbyterian
view, I defended the plurality of elders view. I doubt,
honestly, that Mr. Johnson is overly aware of the
particulars of that debate, and invite the readers to obtain
that book and judge for themselves.
5) Johnson wrote, "Instead, Dr. White sees Mormonism and
Roman Catholicism as "outside the Gospel", not just outside
the Church. For Dr. White, the Church is defined exclusively
by faithfulness to doctrine." I don't think Mr. Johnson
understands the views of those he is so certain are in
error, and here is a good example of that. God's people, in
whom His Spirit dwells, love the truth. They are not saved
in falsehood. Christ prayed they would be sanctified by the
truth. There is no question that during her sojourn on earth
the church is troubled by false sons and apostates. But the
fact remains that from a biblical perspective, we can say
with John, "they went OUT from US, because they were not OF
us." The church knows the gospel, and without the gospel,
there is no Christian unity, no Christian worship, no
Christian faith. The Church exercises discipline so that she
may truly strive to be on earth what her Savior will truly
make her in heaven: pure and spotless. That discipline is
not limited to "doctrine," but without "doctrine," there is
no discipline, nor does she have any message for the world.
There is a reason why we are given apostolic command to
stand for sound doctrine.
6) Mr. Johnson believes what one holds about justification
is not definitional of the gospel. Upon this issue we will,
and must, remain not only at odds, but actively so. This is
not a matter of, "Well, we will just have to disagree
agreeably." If the very standing that is ours in Christ is a
matter of opinion without clear, revelatory foundation,
there is absolutely no reason for any of us to be doing what
we are doing in discussing these things. We have no gospel
message, as we are seeing now in the monochromatic,
unidimensional proclamation forced upon consistent adherents
of NPism. Unlike the many who once pretended zeal and love
for the old truths contained in a fully orbed understanding
of sola fide and sola scriptura and soli
Deo gloria, but who now have stars in their eyes for
other things, I do not believe justification is a
"dispensable" aspect of Gospel truth, especially in a day
like ours. Without the truth of justification, including all
its rich aspects, Christ is robbed of His glory, and
man-centered gospels like Rome's can be identified as
"Christian."
7) As was demonstrated by a good friend of mine recently on
the NTRMin web board, merely claiming to be the guardian of
"Reformed" orthodoxy is no guarantee you are. I reject Mr.
Johnson's one-sided view of things, believe the position of
the Reformers on many issues is significantly more complex
than the current group of rC's are willing to admit, and
beyond all of this, I think there is a little phrase called
semper reformanda which, especially when dealing with
issues that have evolved since the days of the Reformation,
means we should go back to the foundation in answering those
questions: the Scripture. That is something I don't see most
rC's rushing to do, sadly.
8) The citation of Calvin offered by Johnson has, truly,
nothing whatsoever to do with the Roman priest as an
alter Christus.
We Will Continue with Tim Staples on
Thursday
For those who caught the DL today,
we only got through two out of five clips from Tim Staples
on Mary. I will finish those up on Thursday at the
start of the program. Today's DL went by fast, with a
quick comment on the Bill Maher story, a discussion of John
8:40-47 and what happens when you let the human tradition of
libertarianism become your focal point in interpretation,
and then on to Tim Staples. For those wondering, we
have lost all contact with
www.straitgate.com,
and hence are assuming that its future is in doubt. We
will redouble our efforts to get our mp3 listing of all the
Dividing Lines up to date, and the plan is for now to
make the Dividing Lines available the week of their
airing via Real Audio from our own site, and then they will
only be available thereafter in mp3 format for a whopping $1
each.
Parsing Professions, Duly Ordained
Ministers
The fact that the mere form of trinitarian baptism is
insufficient to function as the hoped-for "objective" sign
of the covenant has been brought out in the discussion with
Mr. Johnson regarding the issue. I am thankful, to be
honest, that the first Presbyterians who spoke to me about
their views on baptism did not hold to an ex opere
operato sacramentalism. I note that Richard Muller
defines this term:
ex opere
operato: by the work performed; with
reference to the sacraments, the assumption of medieval
scholasticism and Roman Catholicism that the correct and
churchly performance of the rite conveys grace to the
recipient, unless the recipient places a spiritual
impediment (obex) in the way of grace.
Sacraments themselves, therefore have a virtus
operativa, or operative power. This view of
sacraments is denied by both Lutherans and Reformed, who
maintain that faith must be present in the recipient if
the sacraments are to function as means of grace; the
mere performance of the rite will not convey grace.
(Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek
Theological Terms, p. 108).
So Mr. Johnson
proposes another viewpoint: that the reason Mormon baptisms
are to be rejected is not due to their form, and even less
due to the unorthodoxy of the profession of faith of the one
baptized: instead, Mormon baptisms are to be rejected
because of who performs them. Johnson writes, "Mormon
baptisms are to be rejected because they were never done by
Christ's duly ordained representatives." Hence, the
objectivity of the sign, then, becomes attached to the one
performing it having the proper authority to do so, i.e.,
being duly ordained. (Ironically, this is a mirror
image of the reasoning used by the Mormons themselves in
rejecting all baptisms done outside of the authority of
their own priesthood).
Now, in the process, Mr. Johnson made some interesting
statements. He speculated, as I had, that possibly
this passage, being very early in Smith's "revelations,"
represents something other than modern Mormonism, and surely
that is true to a point. Smith did not believe in a
plurality of Gods in April of 1830 (yes, I know, LDS believe
he did, but that is because they do not recognize that
Smith's "First Vision" story was a later development, and
that until the mid 1830s, Smith was still trying to present
monotheism in his
writings), and hence what D&C 20:73 would mean to him in
1830 would be radically different than what it would mean
when he preaches the King Follett Funeral Discourse in 1844
(not 1841 as Johnson mistakenly indicated). He
likewise indicates that this was when Mormonism "plunged
headlong" into polytheism, when in fact, Smith had been
developing the concept since the late 1830s, and had been
using his "translation" of the Book of
Abraham to substantiate his newfound beliefs. The
KFD was not the point of departure, but the fullest
expression of a previous development. Smith's views were
actually modalistic in 1829, as reflected in Mosiah 15:1-4
in the Book of Mormon.
But all of these issues aside, surely a Mormon elder
is, within the purview of his ecclesiastical organization,
properly "ordained" to the task of baptism (i.e., only valid
priesthood holders can perform the rite). So, one must
begin a priori with a rejection of the validity of
Mormonism as an ecclesiastical body so as to determine that
the ordination of said person is invalid, thusly
invalidating the baptism. Now again, I agree
wholeheartedly that Mormon "ordination" to "priesthood
authority" is completely without meaning with reference to
divine truth: Mormonism has the wrong God, the wrong Savior,
the wrong Spirit, the wrong Gospel, the wrong Word, the
wrong priesthood---if there is a way for a religion to be in
error, Mormonism has found it (and the reason for that is
simple: since it begins with a fundamental denial of the
Creator/creation distinction, it cannot ever provide a
foundation for any element of the truth itself). But I
am being a consistent Reformed Baptist by saying these
things: I not only admit to "parsing" the theology of
Mormonism, I happen to believe I am commanded to do so by
clear and compelling Scriptural teaching. But is that
not right where the battle has been raging regarding rCism
all along? Two things to consider here:
First, who determines who is, and who is not, properly
and duly ordained? Mr. Johnson denies to me the name
"Reformed." One of his compatriots on
reformedcatholicism.com has used the most strident language
(language I've never seen that person use of Mormonism,
though, he himself is a former Mormon) to denounce Baptists,
and I would not have a very difficult time imagining such a
person rejecting my fellowship as a valid church and hence
our baptisms as "valid." But who gets to say?
Second, I am, I truly hope, fully consistent in
applying the exact same standards I used above in regards to
Mormonism to Roman Catholicism and its baptism: it is a
baptism performed outside of the Gospel, first and foremost
(and this is the reason I do not accept it, and instead
would gladly give a new believer who has come out of Roman
Catholicism the tremendous opportunity of expressing their
faith in Christ in believer's baptism). It is, in
fact, viewed in a way that makes it directly detrimental to,
and contradictory to, the message of the gospel of grace.
It is viewed as the very means of justification, the "laver
of regeneration," but even then, it is a justification that
is a very small shadow of the biblical reality itself.
But even more telling is the assertion that the Roman
Catholic priesthood should be considered a valid priesthood
and those within it viewed as "duly ordained ministers of
Christ." Let us remember well the primary focus of the
sacerdotal "authority" of the Roman priest: the sacramental
offering of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice.
He is viewed as an alter Christus, another Christ, as
we read:
"When the
priest announces the tremendous words of consecration,
he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from
His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered
up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a
power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is
greater than that of saints and angels, greater than
that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin
Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by
which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest
brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present
on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of
man--not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks
and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his
head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian
priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador
and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the
essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful
with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent
sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the
same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ
offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which
spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the
priest is that of "alter Christus." For the priest is
and should be another Christ. (John O'Brien, The
Faith of Millions, pp. 255-256.)
I well know what
drove Augustine to his views on the sacraments. And
unlike some rC's, I happen to agree with Warfield when,
evaluating Augustine's theology, he concluded that the
Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the victory of
Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of
the church. Quite so. Hence, I feel no
compulsion to overlook the heretical nature of the Roman
priesthood (how can one who loves Christ's priesthood?), nor
can I view a man who allows himself to be called an alter
Christus as a "duly ordained minister of Christ."
He who owes his loyalty to the "Holy Father" in Rome cannot
at the same time be giving it to the Chief Shepherd of the
Church. The two are incongruous concepts.
6/7/04: Bill Maher Admits What Most Leftists Feel
But Won't Confess
Albert Mohler played a clip from Larry King on his Friday
broadcast (click
here: go 12 minutes in). I will play it on the DL
in the morning, but you might want to listen now. Bill
Maher openly admits his deep prejudice (if he were a
conservative, he'd be a bigot, but we all know liberals
cannot be bigots).
Oh, I finally saw Dave Armstrong's graphic about me.
Here it is. It is properly copyrighted, "Rhys
Tuck (c) 24 May 2004."
The only thing missing is, "Rhys Tuck, Age 9, 3rd Grade,
Detroit Elementary School, Mrs. Klingenhoffer's Class."
Wow, folks, like Rush says, leave that kind of stuff to
the professionals!
Elsewhere, Kevin Johnson wrote a 44k, 16 page reply on
rCism. In summary, any conclusion I present is
"ludicrous," I have misrepresented all of rCism pretty much
constantly, and even my personal story about my history
regarding the doctrines of grace is to be interpreted as
"ad-hominem." Nothing positive could possibly come
from trying to unravel the mass of misunderstandings and
misrepresentations: best to let the reader decide.
Only one issue calls for further attention: D&C 20:73 gives
the formula for baptism in the Mormon Church, and it is in
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
When I pointed this out, Johnson replied:
A Mormon's
baptism is rejected quite simply apart from his
profession of faith. His profession of faith is simply
irrelevant.
His baptism
(and hence membership in Christ's Church) is rejected
because it is not truly in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, Mormon baptism
is not Christian baptism and a baptized Mormon is
rejected because they have not been baptized in the name
of the triune God.
I don't
understand. When I say baptism apart from the gospel
is not Christian baptism, I am told that I am being a "neo-Donatist"
and a "schismatic" and that my sacramentology stinks like a
construction site porta-potty at a fancy wedding. I am
told I cannot "parse" the profession of faith of a person as
long as they are baptized properly. Yet, what makes
for a "proper" baptism? I can't tell. D&C 20:73
states, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize
you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Amen." OK, now, that's in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (unless the use of the
term "Ghost" is the question). So, to say "they have
not been baptized in the name of the triune God" would
demand that Johnson is "parsing" what the Mormons
believe about the doctrine of God and rejecting that
baptism on that basis (and believe me, I agree, 1000%, with
said rejection). But, when I say "baptism done in the
triune name and yet in the service of a false gospel is
likewise irrelevant to the unity and nature of the Christian
faith" I become a schismatic, stinky neo-Donatist.
Someone help me out here. Is this a double-standard?
Miscellaneous Ramblings
Stats,
stats, stats...Let's see, 3284 e-mails hit my main e-mail
address in the past month. 793 were "real," 2491 were spam.
That averages 83 spam e-mails a day, seven days a week.
Thankfully, my anti-spam service nailed all of them. Also
averaged 26.4 "real" e-mails per day. Since I was on the
road most of the month, I only wrote 249 e-mails, barely an
average of 8.3 a day (the preceding month I had written 338
for an average of 11.3/day). I think the stats program we
use in our chat channel has gotten to me. This is very sad.
In fact, it is about 89% sad. Heeeeelp!
I remember sitting in an honors class in High School
the day after the election in 1980. It was an early morning
class (met at 7:20AM...do they even allow kids to go to
school that early anymore?), and one of my chief rivals in
the race for class valedictorian, an atheist, was lamenting
the victory of one Ronald Reagan. Then, the next Spring, I
was in guitar class in the afternoon when the Mr. Munoz came
on the loudspeaker to announce President Reagan had been
shot. I remember thinking it was all over since at that time
he said it had been with "a shotgun," which is generally not
a good thing. I graduated from high school and college, got
married, and had my first child, during the Reagan
presidency. The presidency hasn't fared real well since
then.
6/5/04: A Great Apologetic Resource
No, this isn't because I'm speaking
at the conference in August in Pennsylvania (though
I am). Just wanted to let everyone know of a
blog/resource to add to their daily "run" of important
apologetic sites. Jeff Downs does great work and his
resource page gives you first-hand materials for serious
students. You can access it
here. Thanks for
the work, Jeff!
Mormonism's True Core
The LDS Church is very actively seeking to reshape itself in
the light of the reality that it can no longer survive as a
religion focused upon the inter-mountain West of the USA.
The final result of this transformation is unknown to anyone
but God (apologies to our Open Theistic readers). But one
thing is for certain: in seeking to "mainstream" itself,
Mormonism faces one fundamental hurdle: at its heart, the
religion is opposed to the Christian faith's most
definitional beliefs. So, to "fit in" would require a denial
(not just a re-definition) of the heart of LDS teaching and
belief, and one thing is for certain, the folks who live
around Manti, Utah, will be having none of that any time
soon.
One of the strongest statements I have ever encountered
from an official (i.e., published by the LDS Church under
the copyright of the Corporation of the President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) resource is
found in Achieving a Celestial Marriage: Student Manual
(1992), pp. 4-5. Prior to presenting a staged
conversation between an older, experienced Mormon and a
younger one, some of the subtitles and statements offered
include, "God was once a man who, by obedience, advanced to
his present state of perfection; through obedience and
celestial marriage we may progress to the point where we
become like God;" “…in his mortal condition man is God in
embryo. However….any individual now a mortal being may
attain the rank and sanctity of godship…;" "God Became God
by Obedience to Law" and "Through Obedience to Law We Can
Become Like Our Father in Heaven." But then, in the midst of
the conversation, we encounter the following statement by
the elder Mormon:
"Always. You
are an eternal being. You were never created and you
cannot be destroyed, but you can advance, progress, and
develop by obedience."
Consider well these words, offered by the leadership of the
LDS Church to their most faithful members preparing to be
sealed in the LDS Temple, in light of these passages of
Scripture:
You turn
things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be
like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who
formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the
potter, "He knows nothing"? (Isa. 29:16, NIV)
These things
you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was
just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in
order before your eyes. (Psalm 50:21)
"Do not fear
those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul;
but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)
One can argue that the Creator/creation distinction (with
man, even as the image bearer of God, being firmly in the
'creation' category) is so foundational to Christianity that
Mormonism's denial of that distinction is truly its most
basic heresy. Indeed, note the words of BYU professor
Stephen Robinson:
The important
points of the doctrine for Latter-day Saints are that
Gods and humans are the same species of being, but at
different stages of development in the divine continuum,
and that the heavenly Father and Mother are the heavenly
pattern...of what mortals can become through obedience
to the gospel."
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, pp. 548-549)
6/4/04: RC's Applaud rC's
Dave Armstrong is trumpeting NT
Wright and Andrew Sandlin on his blog today. Shouldn't
surprise anyone. Note these two statements from Wright
and Sandlin and ponder them well:
They need not
know "theology" to be saved; they do need to know that
Jesus and His redemptive work is their only hope and
that in trusting Him, they are abandoning themselves to
Him. (Sandlin)
Comment:
Excuse me, but could Andrew Sandlin tell me who Jesus is
without using theology to do so? Can he tell me what
the phrase "His redemptive work" is, again, without engaging
in communicating sound theology? What does "trusting
Him" mean, non-theologically? What does "abandoning
myself to Him" mean, again, without using theological terms?
And, if a person says, "I trust in Christ, but I believe
Christ lives in Canada today, and is a vegetarian, and I
believe his redemptive work is at Walmart," is that enough?
And if you say, "No, no, no, that's all wrong," aren't you
saying that person...must know theology in some fashion?
I thought Christian faith had an object, which means there
is a need for the sound proclamation of the....truth?
This may make me a Neo-Donatist, but ...where have I missed
the boat?
One is not justified by faith by believing in
justification by faith.
One is justified by faith by believing in Jesus. It
follows quite clearly that a great many people are
justified by faith who don’t know they are justified by
faith. The Galatian Christians were in fact justified
by faith, though they didn’t realize it and thought they
had to be circumcized as well. (NT Wright, What Saint
Paul Really Said, p159)
Read that a
few times over and then think of Paul's own words:
Galatians
5:2-4 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive
circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And
I testify again to every man who receives circumcision,
that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You
have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be
justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
See, You Can't Win
So how did Akin respond to being
provided with the refutation of his errors on Greek grammar?
Well, "it's all misdirection, I tell you! Sure I put
this out in a debate, and sure I put it in writing, and sure
I defended it on the air, and no, I can't defend it because
I don't know what I'm talking about, but White wrote three
sentences to give background to a news event, and those
three sentences were not up to my specs, so he's mean and we
should only focus on that!" Well, again, let the
reader decide. :-)
For the Very Busy Jimmy Akin
I am such a horrible person.
Or so Jimmy Akin says, and hence, it must be true. I
mean, my horrible attitude must be the reason for his
constant mocking tone and derogatory statements. Has
to be. What other reason could there be? Well, I
guess he might be so very snippy because he's so busy.
His current blog makes that point strongly. I mean, I
can't imagine how busy the man is. I am only married
with children, hold office in the church, teach for two
seminaries, live in airports and on airliners, do five to
six formal debates a year, and have had one book come out
this year so far and two more coming out in the next three
months, not including journal articles. So what could
I possibly know? That might explain how his dismissive
articles about me are OK, but if I dare reply, I'm
"ranting."
Anyway, Jimmy Akin doesn't know about what I've said
about his errors regarding the inceptive aorist. I
mean, he wants everyone to know that he doesn't read this
blog regularly. And why an apologist would be
concerned about the refutation of any of his arguments one
could not possibly understand. So he wants to know
what I've said so he can respond to it. So, I am more
than happy to help him out. First, I sent Mr. Akin, in
mp3 format, the entire section from the February, 2002
Dividing Line where I discussed the inceptive aorist
issue, played the call to him from a Catholic, etc.
For those who wish to hear it,
here's the
link. Simply fast-forward to 33 minutes into the
program to hear the segment. It is pretty
self-explanatory. Next, here are three links to give him
quick, fast, direct access to what I've said about his
exegesis recently: #1,
#2,
#3. There, I
hope this will help Mr. Akin to obtain all the material he
needs.
6/3/04: That Article on Phil. 2:5-11
Well, right at the end of today's DL RH4JC came up with my
article on Phil. 2:5-11. Another ministry had been
given the right to post it (if anyone knows how to get hold
of the proprietors, let them know our phone numbers are
wrong on this article, it's 973 not 873).
Here's the article.
Further Reply to Johnson
This exchange is way too long for
the blog, but it is relevant to many of the current issues.
I have added my response to the previous article.
However, let me post just the start of the response:
Mr. Johnson replied shortly after I posted this response.
The final paragraph of that reply reads:
Yes,
Athanasius and other apologists defended their
doctrines, but it was the ordinary reality of the simple
salvation of the faithful in Jesus Christ seen quite
clearly in lives like the Virgin Mary that had the
greatest impact--the working of the Word in the life of
the community of the faithful.
It is this kind of assertion that creates so much confusion
in the minds of people today. Is this saying Athanasius
"missed it" in investing so much time and energy in the
defense of the deity of Christ? Was he in error to write
books against the Arians, and even suffer himself to be
removed from his see five times by force, all over some
"propositional doctrine"? How much better it would seem to
have been to just not worry about "parsing doctrine" but
rather to remain with his people and demonstrate the
"working of the Word in the life of the community of the
faithful." But doesn't this illustrate what I said a number
of times above? This kind of statement has the facade of
spirituality, and is surely offered with sincere motives,
but what good is it if its truth content is nil? The fact of
the matter is, to separate out "doctrines" from "the working
of the Word in the life of the community of the faithful" is
the very docetic kind of theology that rC's claim others are
promoting. There is no separating the CONTENT of the Word,
its doctrine, its teaching, from living it out in the
community. That is why this debate is so important, for in
essence what these rC's who openly have moved *away from* a
stance of vigorous, open, honest debate against the false
gospel of Rome (or any other group that has fallen into the
Galatian error) into the fluffy middle ground of endless
mantras and pipe-smoking, wine-sipping ecumenical fraternity
with Chesterton-wannabes are doing is denying the
knowability of the substance of divine revelation and
replacing it with a complex of traditionally-driven
platitudes that place the key issues of the gospel on a
lower plane of "negotiables." They are seeking to create
unity based upon something other than the gospel itself, and
the result is quite simply hideous, for the union of what
"Reformed" means (a passion for God's sole glory, His
inviolable truth, Christ's supremacy as Lord of all things,
and the purity of His gospel) and its polar opposite is
unpleasant in the extreme. (continue
with the reply)
No, TGE, That's Not the Case
Several vocal
critics have recently adopted the tactic of merely
pasting from their files all manner of scathingly
damnatory citations about "Papists" and "idolatry" and
so forth from Calvin and other 16th century Protestants.
Much virtual ink has been spilled about the
"inconsistency" of the Reformed Catholics in attempting
to deal more charitably with Roman Catholics.
Observations: 1) When rC's (my new way of
referring to "Reformed Catholics so as to differentiate it
from Roman Catholics, who are RC's) quote Calvin, they are
just letting the Reformers speak; when "Neo-Donatist
Zwinglians" cite the same sources, they are "merely pasting"
rhetoric. 2) It just so happens those citations
actually address the nature of the church and the fact that
Roman churches contain merely a small remnant of the elect
are synagogues of Satan---concepts which MIGHT be relevant
to determining a fair idea of what Calvin actually believed.
3) This has absolutely positively nothing to do
with being charitable (unless one wishes to adopt the NEA/NARAL/DNC/Hollywood
definition of 'loving' here), it has to do with speaking the
truth. There is nothing charitable about veiling false
gospels in flowery medieval rhetoric. There is nothing
loving in minimizing fundamental differences and creating
endless confusion in the minds of the people of God.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks.
Jimmy Akin and Saints
Below I noted, very briefly and mainly in
passing for those who have no earthly idea what terms like
"canonization" and "beatification" and the like mean, what
is going on regarding Anne Catherine Emmerich. I was
just doing a quick "blog run" and discovered that Akin
invested a major size chunk of his blog today to what I call
the Catholic Answers Shuffle. It is very much
like what Gerry Matatics did when he was the darling of the
staff of Catholic Answers in our first debate in
1990: he spent the first 14 minutes of his 20 minute opening
statement never once mentioning the topic of the debate, but
rather seeking to convince his audience that I had no idea
what I was talking about (and even then, he completely
misrepresented my first book, The Fatal Flaw, in the
process). While I find Akin's reply to a quick note on
the beatification of Emmerich rather picayune, what I find
more odd is the fact that Akin would invest so much effort
on a minor issue while continuing stone-cold silent on the
errors in his statements I have documented just recently on
this blog. Specifically, I have often made reference
to his display of ignorance of the most basic elements of
Greek grammar and syntax in our radio debate on the
perseverance of the saints. I replayed his comments on
The Dividing Line just recently. I'd think it
would be significantly more important to address issues of
biblical import rather than invest such effort on splitting
hairs over how to define a "saint." Possibly he is
betting his readers do not read both of our blogs?
He'd probably be correct. Someone should ask him about
his "inceptive aorist" assertions regarding John 6.
Briefly, in response to Akin's blog: I will ignore the
majority of the reply as most of it is rhetorical (Akin
would like a link to the article I had read: well, try
Google). Akin seeks to dispute the definition of a
saint in the Scriptures in relation to my assertion that a
saint today is a believing Christian who has been
justified by faith in Jesus Christ. My point, of
course, is that there is no biblical basis for the Roman
multiplication of meanings to the term. While he
ignores the context of my comment (easily done when you
focus upon a single paragraph notification of a recent
event) he cites a number of passages, some even from the OT,
where some form of a term that can be translated "holy one"
or saint is used, as if this is relevant or supportive of
the Roman Catholic creation of an entire category regarding
supposed holiness and temporal punishments. One highly
relevant example he provides is from John 6:69 where Peter
replies to the Lord Jesus and says Jesus is "the Holy One of
God." Akin points out that you could render this, "The
Saint of God," as if somehow this is relevant to the point I
was making. Is the use of hagios in reference
to Christ (with the article in the singular in a particular
context regarding the identity of Christ as the Messiah)
somehow relevant to the regular use of hagioi in the
epistles of Paul when addressing the Christians in the
churches (the context to which I was referring, since I was
referring to the use of "saint" today)? You judge.
Now, the title of Akin's entry is "Check Your Facts."
That is, Akin wishes to take a few sentences in a blog,
argue with them, and use this as a means of telling his
audience I have no idea what I'm talking about when I
mention Roman Catholicism. Again, it seems evident
that he banks on his readers having never listened to any of
the debates we have been doing for a number of years now.
You would think it would be a bit more meaningful to address
something I've published in a book, or presented in a
debate, than a quick note on a blog about the beatification
of Emmerich. Says something to me, anyway. But
Akin is in "mock mode" in this entry, so we should not be
surprised. He takes umbrage to my statement that
someone might have "more merit than temporal punishment upon
their soul at death." OK, how much different is that
than this statement: "Third, In order to gain the full
effect of a Plenary Indulgence, it is also necessary to have
a perfect repentance, and sincere detestation of all our
sins, even the least venial sin; because, as the punishment
of sin will never be forgiven, while the guilt of it remains
in the soul, and as a sincere repentance is absolutely
required for the remission of the guilty; therefore, this
sincere repentance must precede the remission of the
punishment." "In the soul" or "on the soul," is there
some magic difference? If not, what purpose is there
in wasting time criticizing the terminology, outside of
trying to make yourself look good to a very biased audience?
Next, he ignores the fact that I am talking about one
use of the term "saint" to explain to my audience something
about the process of canonization and basically demands of a
few sentences the fullness of an encyclopedic entry.
Akin invests a lot of time discussing the minutiae of canon
law and practice, so I guess it is "his thing." The
fact remains that one's holiness of life results in merit:
that is the entire basis of supererogation, indulgences, the
treasury of merit, etc. All I was explaining is that a
person who is judged to have "extra" merit beyond what is
needed in light of their sins so as to be considered
cleansed and ready for entrance into God's presence, does so
without entering purgatory. Is this not the case?
Yes, it is, so why play games? The reader is free to
decide. Obviously, the term "saint" is then used of those
who have been cleansed and "left" purgatory at a later time,
but I wasn't addressing that usage in explaining the
basics of the Roman position so as to make the Emmerich
situation understandable to those who have no background in
why the Pope is doing what he is doing. Talk about
being desperate to find a way to make a point!
So let's compare things: I have pointed out the glaring
incapacity of Jimmy Akin as a biblical exegete regarding
comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44.
His erroneous comments are available on the web. In
comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences
in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered
context and insist upon fuller definitions. I'd think
one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could
produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen
debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books
in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would
like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who
Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that
passage? Let's call Mr. Akin to a little higher
standard, shall we?
6/2/04:
Oh Lord, What Do You Say to This?
If I did not believe that every Federal Judge (known today
as "god on earth" it seems, at least in their own minds)
will someday stand before the True Judge, I would throw my
hands up in utter dismay.
Take two ibuprofen before reading this. My
friends, such judges are a judgment from God on an ungodly
nation. Mark my words (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).
Calvin Speaks
For to this
day we are a wonder to God’s enemies, who carry
themselves not only with boldness but with abandoned
impudence against the pure doctrine of the gospel. To
them we are heretics, schismatics, dogs — nay, the
offscouring of the world. But although we are to them
for signs and wonders, it is sufficient for us to be
acknowledged by God: because it is needful for us to be
separated from that impious conspiracy unless we wish to
be separated from God himself. For what agreement is
there with Papists, or what union with those dregs,
unless by separation from God himself? Therefore,
because we cannot extend the hand to Papists on any
other condition, and cultivate a brotherly intercourse
with them except by denying God, let all that injurious
union with them cease, and let us learn to separate from
them with boldness....(John Calvin, commenting on
Ezekiel 2:8)
6/1/04:
A Reply to Kevin Johnson on "Reformed Catholicism"
Way too long for the blog.
It gets its own page.
Emmerich to be Beatified
Nothing really startling here. Anne Catherine Emmerich,
the 19th century visionary whose book, The Dolorous
Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ provided a major
portion of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, will
be beatified at a ceremony October 3rd, a move which puts
her on the road to "sainthood." For those who only
know the biblical definition of a saint (i.e., a Christian,
called and holy not because of what we have done, but
because of what Christ has done for us), in Roman
Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than
temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they
do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are
fit for the presence of God immediately. But the
official process of canonization, being made an official
"saint," is a church-based means of honoring particularly
"holy" people who have passed on. The current Pope has
been a veritable saint-making machine, canonizing, as I have
heard, more saints than any other single Pontiff.
Goofy "Reformed Catholic" Statement of the Day
I think I would sooner see a person
attend a Roman Catholic church than a Baptist or
Pentecostal church.
and,
Why do we let these "Reformed" Baptists
get away with this stuff, anyway? They openly separate
themselves from the historic Church, so who authorized
them to provide the "objective exegesis" about the
real meaning of the Mass or whatever?
