More not Less Church as the Day of the Lord Approaches

One of the questions that Mr. Arnzen asked Mr. Harold Camping, during the four-day discussion on Iron Sharpens Iron between Dr. James White and Mr. Harold Camping, was about whether the listeners of Family Radio have their own gatherings. Mr. Camping indicated that, aside from a small group in Almeda, California (where Mr. Camping resides), he does not encourage his listeners to gather together. As we will see below, this practice of abandoning the fellowship and communion of the saints is not only contrary to the historic creeds of the church, but also (and much more importantly) contrary to Scripture itself. In the current post we will see this shown from Hebrews 10:23-25.

Hebrews 10:23-25
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Harold Camping admits that Judgment Day is in view here: “We know that Judgment Day is in view in this verse … .” (source) Mr. Camping is right because we see from the context that the “day” mentioned here is the day of the Lord, the day of judgment:

Hebrews 10:30-31
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Nevertheless, Harold Camping argues that:

Returning to Hebrews 10, verses 24 and 25, we read a very curious comment. Verse 25 declares:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner is…

This is indeed curious language. One would think that it would be more logical to say, “not forsaking the assembling of the congregation” or “not forsaking the assembling of the church.” Why does God use the strange language, “assembling of ourselves”? As we have already noted, God is focusing on the time when Judgment Day is very near. We understand this by the phrase, “so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Another curiosity is the usage of the Greek word episynagogen which is translated “assembling together.” This Greek word is used in only one other instance in the Bible. That citation is II Thessalonians 2:1, where we read:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.

The phrase “gathering together” in this verse is translated from the same Greek word episynagogen. When we look at the context of II Thessalonians 2:1, we know who is assembling or gathering together. This passage is speaking of those individuals who are gathering together to meet Christ at his coming. The only people who are ready to meet Christ at his coming are true believers. Churches will not be ready to meet Christ. Whole congregations are not ready to meet Christ. Even if Christ had come before the church age was over, only a remnant of the congregation would have been ready to meet Him.

The point God is making is that the Greek word episynagogen emphasizes the gathering together of individuals. It is not in any way looking at a body of people who are all members of one local congregation.

This agrees with the usage of the same Greek word, episynagogen, which we find in Hebrews 10:25, where God emphasizes that individuals are in view as indicated by the usage of the word “ourselves.” Thus, a body of people, like a local congregation, cannot be in view in Hebrews 10:25 any more than a local congregation could be in view in II Thessalonians 2:1.

(same source)
This argument is absolutely absurd. Allow me to elaborate, though, because my simply saying it is absurd will have little weight with Harold Camping’s listeners.

The term “episynagogen” is a word that combines “epi” (a primary preposition that has, in this case, a directional sense) and “sunagoge” (the word from which we derive “synagogue” meaning the meeting or meeting place). To “episunagoge” means to get to synagogue, or to use modern terminology “go to church.”

Someone may point out that the term might have a broader sense of simply coming together as an assembly in Greek. While that is true, the context cannot be ignored. This is an epistle to the Hebrews, and must be understood within that context: as being written to Hebrews.

The attempted imposition of the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is also wrong. Even if we understand 2 Thessalonians 2:1 to refer to the gathering unto Christ at the second coming (something of which the church is a foreshadow), that is certainly not the sense that is being used in Hebrews 10:23-25.

We know that it is not the sense of Hebrews 10:23-25, because Hebrews tells us two things:

(1) “as the manner of some is”

While the verb “is” is implied (not stated) in the Greek, the point of the phrase is to compare what the Hebrews should not do with what others have or are doing. But the coming of Christ is not something that has already come, and consequently there would be nothing to which to compare if the sense of “assembling of ourselves together” is a reference to the gathering at the second coming rather than the weekly gathering.

(2) “and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching”

Again, this provides a comparison. The comparison is between the present and the future. This serves to demonstrate that the verse is talking about something that the Hebrew believers were already doing.

It is not just a comparison, but a comparison of enhancement. They are not to get to church less and less as they see the day of the Lord approaching. Instead, they are to assemble more and more. This practice of fellowship is to increase until Jesus’ return.

Finally, the argument is absurd because the idea that “ourselves” should be contrasted to “church” is itself absurd. The focus is on the activity of the individuals in going to the assembly. That individual action is contrasted with the action of some people who don’t go to church. The usual sense of the text is not that the individuals are supposed to get others to go to church, but that they themselves should go to church.

But I have left out the most obvious argument in the discussion above. The text says:

Not Forsaking

That means “don’t stop.” The Greek is “μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες,” which means to leave something behind. We see it used in several places in Scripture:

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Romans 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2 Timothy 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

As you can see, in every instance it refers to a pre-existing condition that is then either (positively) maintained by the thing remaining, or (negatively) altered by the thing being discontinued. In this case, the pre-existing condition is that the Hebrew believers are going to “synagogue” (first to the synagogue of the Jews and later to the Christian church which corresponds thereto).

The undeniable conclusion is that the author of Hebrews, God himself who inspired it, is telling the Hebrews to continue doing what they were already doing, namely assembling together to worship God. Moreover, God is telling them not to stop doing this but to continue this more and more as the day of judgment approaches. The end of the church age, if we wish to call the New Testament period by that name, is Judgment Day. That day has not yet come, and consequently we are called to continue to assemble together.

-TurretinFan

To God be the Glory!

Have I Offended You, Dear Reader?

I appreciate the many folks who read this blog. Some of them I necessarily offend, because I affirm that men are sinners and that the gospel is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. That message in itself is bound to offend sinners who don’t wish to be identified as such and those who preach other gospels. That offense is simply inevitable. Nevertheless, I may also inadvertently offend others. This blog post is designed to serve as a clearinghouse for your complaints that I’ve offended you. You can submit a comment here, and I’ll read it. If I can, I’ll try to remedy the offense.

By the way, don’t assume that I know I offended you. At the present, I’m blissfully unaware of any such cases. Nevertheless, I realize that they may exist despite my best efforts not to give unnecessary offense. So please – if I have offended you, please let me know.

To God be the Glory!

Arminius’ Impact on Calvinism

Dan (“GodIsMyJudge”) has an interesting post in honor of the 400th anniversary of Arminius’ death (link). One criticism I have, is that I think he overstates the significance of the infralapsarian wording of Dordt’s discussion of election. In fact, one could walk away from GodIsMyJudge’s post thinking that Arminius was an infralapsarian Calvinist who prevailed at Dordt against the supralapsarians, rather than having his errant views condemned by that synod. In context, the point of Dordt is to deny foreseen merit, something upon which both supralapsarians and infralapsarians agree.

-TurretinFan

To God be the Glory!

Die Like Men? A Response to Dr. Michael Heiser

We are all going to die. I don’t mean that in an imminent way, though perhaps some of us will pass shortly, but instead in a general sense. It is the condition of humanity that all men die. You and I will both die one day. If you are not righteous in God’s eyes when you come before His holy judgment, you will be sentenced to hell. Now, while there is time, repent of your sins. Ask God for mercy, and seize hold of Christ as your mediator. But that’s not the primary reason I wrote this post. After all, many of the readers of this blog already believe.

Instead, I wanted to focus on responding to something Dr. Michael Heiser has written. I hope to add a few points to the excellent points already presented by Dr. White in his earlier post (link). You may recall that Dr. Heiser wrote: “If these elohim are humans, why are they sentenced to die “like humans”? A clear contrast is intended by both the grammar and structure of the Hebrew text (Prinsloo; Handy, “Sounds”).”

Dr. Heiser is referring to Psalm 82.

Background

Psalm 82 is a warning to unjust judges. God is the judge of judges, just as he is elsewhere described as the King of kings and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; and Revelation 19:16)

God accuses these judges of judging unjustly, and particularly accepting the bribes of the wicked. He tells them to defend the poor and fatherless, the afflicted and needy. Specifically he urges them to defend the weak from the powerful wicked.

Then, God changes voices and talks about these unjust judges, saying that they do not understand. God says that he has called them gods, and that they are children of God. Nevertheless, he warns them that they will die like men and princes die. The Psalm ends with the singer calling forth God’s judgment on all nations.

These judges are referred to as “elohim” (as Dr. Heiser notes), but there are a few significant problems in Dr. Heiser’s analysis.

I. Meaning of “Like Humans”
Dr. Heiser seems to insist that “like humans” must be translated in a way that distinguishes these unjust judges from humans. He’s a credentialed professor in the area of Semitics, and I don’t provide any credentials. Nevertheless, I’d like to encourage the reader to consider the evidence.

a) The other usages of the expression
The expression translated “like men” in the KJV is “כְּאָדָ֣ם“. The precise form of this word is unique to Psalm 82:7, but very similar forms may be found in Job 31:33 (“כְאָדָ֣ם“) and Hosea 6:7 (“כְּאָדָ֖ם“).

i) Job 31:33

Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

Notice that in this instance, the speaker is Job. There is really no denying that Job is human. In this instance, while Job is not admitting to being like Adam, he is discussing the matter hypothetically. Thus, the expression is not only not a denial of Job’s humanity, but also not a way of distinguishing (at least not directly) Job from Adam. Of course, Job is not Adam, though Job is human.

ii) Hosea 6:7

Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

God here is speaking about people. There’s really no serious question that the context is God talking about the wickedness of his chosen nation. I do wonder whether the better translation here might be (as in Job) “like Adam.” Namely, they are transgressing the Covenant of Moses, just as Adam transgressed the Covenant of the Garden. Regardless, essentially the same analysis as in Job follows. They are not Adam, but they are men.

b) The immediate context
The immediate context of the expression “die like men” is a Hebrew parallelism to the expression “fall like one of the princes.” The term “fall” here is a synonym for “die.” Which princes are in mind here is somewhat of a difficult question.

Hosea 7:6 refers to the princes of Israel falling by the sword and 2 Samuel 3:38 refers to Abner’s death as the falling of prince. While some have suggested that Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18) is in mind, this seems somewhat strained, particularly given the parallel in play here. The “princes” (we must note) among the Israelites were the elders of the people, not the sons of the king (as in western monarchies). Thus, we see references to the princes of Israel both before (Numbers 21:18 and Judges 10:18) and after (Ezra 9:1-2 and Nehemiah 9:32) the monarchy, as well as during it (Jeremiah 26:16).

Notice as well that is not “like the princes” but “like one of the princes.” This usage weighs in favor of translating “die like men” as “die like a man” or “die like Adam” (Adam means man, in Hebrew, so it is sometimes hard to distinguish the two). In any event, the Hebrew expression translated “like men” is a singular expression, and so is the expression “one of the princes.”

These singular expressions do, in fact, contrast with “ye” (the plural pronoun in English – expressed in the Hebrew by the conjugation of the two verbs in the sentence). Thus, if Dr. Heiser is simply noting that there is a comparison being made, he’s right. Yet it is an equivalent comparison to those in Job and Hosea mentioned above.

c) best sense
The best sense of the text is that God is warning these judges of their impending doom. We might paraphrase God’s comment as: “Everyone dies (both ordinary men and princes), and you won’t be an exception.” Dr. Heiser views the comment from God as a sentence imposed on the judges, and – of course – death is a sentence for sin. It is sufficient, however, to simply view this as a proclamation of the doom that awaits unjust judges. They must die and come before the Judge of judges to answer for their injustice.

II. Backward Reference to the Pentateuch
In addition to the local context of the expression and the other uses of the expression, there is also the question of the relationship of meaning of this text with other texts. Dr. White has already addressed more than sufficiently the relationship of this text with the New Testament. That by itself should be a sufficient basis for rejecting Dr. Heiser’s position. Nevertheless, the Old Testament also provides additional light.

Specifically, verse 6 does not simply refer to the judges as “gods” (elohim) but states that God has said this:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The question is, where did God describe these unjust judges as “gods” (elohim)? It seems unlikely that this is simply a reference back to verse 1 of the psalm, though we cannot completely eliminate the possibility.

There are several places where judges are referred to as “elohim” in the Pentateuch:

Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (elohim); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:8-9

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (elohim), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (elohim); and whom the judges (elohim) shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods (elohim), nor curse the ruler of thy people.

And beyond the Pentateuch:

1 Samuel 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge (elohim) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

It should be noted, of course, that although that is the KJV’s translation of the verses, as is so often the case, many of the modern translations disagree, using “God” instead of judges. Probably the strongest of these verses is Exodus 22:28, in that it provides a parallel between “reviling the gods” and “cursing the ruler of thy people,” which serves to demonstrate that the two concepts are analogous. Furthermore Paul, in Acts 23:5, makes application of this verse (at least the second half of it) to the human rulers of Israel.

It is interesting to observe that while Dr. Heiser has attempted to dismiss Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9, he has not provided a similar response to Exodus 22:28 (link).

Conclusion
Much of Dr. Heiser’s argument with respect to the text relies on a higher critical framework that is repulsive to the traditional evangelical scholar. This makes interacting with Dr. Heiser difficult from the standpoint of finding any common ground upon which to premise discussions. I am not sure, for example whether the second part of this post (the other Old Testament references to human rulers as elohim) would have any particular significance for Dr. Heiser, because I’m not sure that Dr. Heiser would necessarily hold that the Scriptures have been providentially preserved for us, such that we might look for this prior statement of God in Scripture.

On the other hand, Dr. Heiser should be willing to accept the lexical grounds on which the first of the two points (i.e. the grammatical question of the expression “die like a man”) is premised. I do not know whether Dr. Heiser will read this discussion, but – if he does – I would be very curious as to how he would seek to continue his argument that “die as humans do” (translation used by Heiser) is something that clearly distinguishes these elohim from humans.

Dr. Heiser’s comment that “This sounds as awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark,” seems to fail to appreciate the very different negative consequences of dying as opposed to growing up (unless one is Peter Pan) or barking. A better comparison would be the comparison in the Proverbs:

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Cautioning the fool that he will return to his folly or a dog to his vomit is not an empty statement devoid of negative connotation. Indeed, the apostle Peter refers us to this very proverb:

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Even so, contrary to Dr. Heiser’s suggestion that “The point of verse 6 is that, in response to their corruption, the [elohim] will be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die as humans die,” the point is that these judges should be aware of their mortality and the impending judgment of God. They should repent of their ways in order, at a minimum, to seek to avoid the punishment they deserve for their injustice. Dr. Heiser’s attempted explanation might seem to work if the text only mentioned dying like a man, but it also mentions falling (a synonym for dying) like one of the princes. The concept emphasized by the parallel is not a stripping of immortality, but a reminder of existing mortality: every man and every prince will die and face judgment, these unjust judges being no exception.

I’ll conclude with a similar warning from another Psalm:

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

-TurretinFan

To God be the Glory!

Wayne Grudem on the Atonement

Wayne Grudem has provided his Systematic Theology: an enormous (1291 pages) and apparently popular (the cover of one recent printing claims sales of over 1/4 million) tome. Chapter 27 (pp. 568-607 in what appears to be the 2000 printing) addresses the topic of the atonement. Much of the material serves as a helpful general introduction to the atonement from a broadly Calvinistic perspective. There are a number of helpful explanations in the chapter that are geared toward frequently asked contemporary questions, such as the question “did Christ endure eternal suffering.”

There were also, however, a few disappointments with the chapter. Pages 582-94 include a very lengthy discussion of the credal phrase “he descended into hell.” While this may be an important discussion, it seemed out of place at least as to the proportion of emphasis in the chapter. Grudem’s discussion is quite detailed and provides an uncharacteristically (for Grudem on the atonement) deep look into history. Although it was quite detailed, I think I still prefer the explanation provided by Danny Hyde, which I discussed previously (link).

The chapter was especially weak in its defense of particular redemption, also called “limited atonement.” The exegetical analysis of the passages relied upon by Amyraldians and Arminians seemed cursory at best, and omitted some of the best explanations of the sense of those passages. Furthermore, while little space was devoted to establishing the doctrine from Scripture many times more space was devoted to accommodating those who disagree with this doctrine.

Especially disappointing was Grudem’s naive assertion that “It seems to be a mistake to state the question [of the extent of the atonement] as Berkhof does and focus on the purpose of the Father and the Son, rather than on what actually happened in the atonement.” What actually happened, after all, depends largely on the intent and purpose of the Father and the Son.

In his ecumenical efforts, Grudem ends up providing a number of confused statements regarding characterizations of the atonement, such as affirming that it is proper to say that “Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people” or “Christ died to make salvation available to all people.” The problem with these statements becomes clear when we realize that Grudem’s statements are statements about the purpose and intent of the atonement (and statements that get that purpose and intent wrong, at least formally), rather than about what the atonement actually did.

The above criticism should not be taken as suggesting that Grudem is an Amyraldian. He is insistent that the atonement only paid for the sins of the elect. Nevertheless, his chapter contains a number of significant weaknesses, which prevent it from receiving the highest praise. Lest we end on a sour note, it should be observed that Grudem provides an interesting (if somewhat incomplete) bibliography at the end of the chapter, as he does at the end of many (perhaps all) of the chapters of his Systematic Theology. All in all, it is a good introduction to the topic, but you can get a more accurate and more detailed explanation in a number of the books to which Grudem refers his readers.

To God be the Glory!

Pope Michael

David Bawden (aka pope Michael) claims to be the successor to pope Pius XII (link to story). Like many folks, Mr. Bawden recognizes that modern Catholicism (post Vatican II) represents a break with more traditional Roman Catholic beliefs. In the quotations provided in the article, Mr. Bawden points to an alleged change in the view of the atonement from essentially a limited atonement view to a general atonement view. He apparently broke away from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) back in the 70’s and in 1990 was elected to the papacy (apparently by six of his followers). According to the article, he excommunicated pope John Paul II, though the article doesn’t indicate what action (if any) he has taken toward Benedict XVI.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Rome’s devoted children soon tell us that this (like so many disputes over the papacy over the years – including the new splinter formed by pope Michael’s former follower Teresa Stanfill Benns) is the result of Sola Scriptura. Don’t ask me how that is supposed to be logical, since these groups probably think that Rome is to accommodating toward Sola Scriptura. But if Roman apologists can blame Sola Scriptura for Mormonism, (so-called) Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism, and so forth, they cannot reasonably draw the line at the variant versions of their own religion.

To God be the Glory!

Introduction to God from the Psalms

Thanks for reading this short discussion of the amazing God whom we worship.

Of Him we say:

Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Psalm 9:11 Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

Why do we say this?

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 95:5 The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land.

Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

God made the world from nothing. He spoke and it came to be. He even made us human beings.

Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

But that’s not all:

Psalm 74:17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

Psalm 104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

God made time itself, and the measurements of time. God is not only powerful, having created the earth, but holy as well:

Psalm 22:3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

One of the aspects of God being holy is that God judges between righteousness and wickedness:

Psalm 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 138:6 Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.

God is not only able to see what people do, but God even knows what is in man’s heart:

Psalm 44:21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.

Psalm 94:11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Indeed, sin is the state of all men by nature:

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

And the anger of God is powerful against sin and those who do sin:

Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

Psalm 90:7 For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.

Psalm 90:11 Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath.

Psalm 56:7 Shall they escape by iniquity? in thine anger cast down the people, O God.

Psalm 69:24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

Psalm 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

God is not all anger, however. There is mercy in God as well:

Psalm 103:8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

Psalm 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.

Psalm 78:38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.

Psalm 30:5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

Psalm 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.

What then is necessary for one to receive mercy from God rather than anger? The first answer is obvious. Ask for mercy.

Psalm 130:7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.

In hope, then, one must repent of sin or face destruction:

Psalm 90:3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.

Psalm 119:79 Let those that fear thee turn unto me, and those that have known thy testimonies.

Psalm 78:34 When he slew them, then they sought him: and they returned and enquired early after God.

How does one seek for mercy? Here are some example:

Psalm 85:4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.

Psalm 27:9 Hide not thy face far from me; put not thy servant away in anger: thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.

Psalm 6:1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.

Psalm 25:7 Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O LORD.

Psalm 26:11 But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity: redeem me, and be merciful unto me.

Psalm 44:26 Arise for our help, and redeem us for thy mercies’ sake.

Psalm 86:16 O turn unto me, and have mercy upon me; give thy strength unto thy servant, and save the son of thine handmaid.

Psalm 6:4 Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake.

Psalm 80:3 Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

Psalm 85:4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.

More mechanically speaking the way is sacrifice:

Psalm 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

But that sacrifice is the sacrifice that God himself made in the person of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we do not any longer offer those burnt offerings of former times:

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Instead, we offer sacrifices of joy:

Psalm 27:6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the LORD.

Sacrifices of thanksgiving:

Psalm 107:22 And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.

Psalm 116:17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.

Sacrifices of Repentance and Contrition:

Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

and Sacrifices of Righteousness:

Psalm 4:5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.

Psalm 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Another way to characterize the mechanism is by redemption. After all, there is a sense in which sacrifice can be a payment for sins. We cannot, however, do this for ourselves or for one another:

Psalm 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Instead, God – through Christ – redeems:

Psalm 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Psalm 72:14 He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.

Psalm 130:8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Specifically, the Lord Jesus Christ is the redeemer:

Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Psalm 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

So, the most particular way to seek mercy through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus is to place your trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Yet for the salvation of His people God turned the hand of his power upon the Son, Jesus Christ:

Psalm 80:17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.

This was done for us, his people:

Psalm 68:28 Thy God hath commanded thy strength: strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.

Psalm 126:3 The LORD hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad.

God did this because the redemption of His people is precious to Him:

Psalm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

Psalm 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

If you trust in Jesus Christ, you may find mercy, as others have:

Psalm 34:22 The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.

Psalm 85:3 Thou hast taken away all thy wrath: thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger.

Psalm 36:7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

Psalm 13:6 I will sing unto the LORD, because he hath dealt bountifully with me.

Psalm 71:23 My lips shall greatly rejoice when I sing unto thee; and my soul, which thou hast redeemed.

This has just been a small sampling of what the Psalms tell us about God and about Jesus Christ, and the Psalms are just a part of the whole Bible, which provides much more information about not only the greatness of God who created and governs all things, who is holy and before whom sinners cannot stand on the day of judgment, but also about the way of escape through repentance of sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. So hear this now, while there is time, for judgment is coming:

Psalm 9:8 And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.

Psalm 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 96:13 Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Psalm 98:9 Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

Praise be to His Glorious name, both now and forever,

-TurretinFan

To God be the Glory!

Does Scripture Commend Roman Practices? A response to Steve Kellmeyer

Steve Kellmeyer (Roman Catholic) has provided some comments in response to my post on Forbidding to Marry (link to my post).

Mr. Kellmeyer asks:

Didn’t Christ tell the apostles that eunuchs who made themselves so for the kingdom of God were blessed?

I answer: No, Christ did not tell them that. In the passage to which you are attempting to refer, Christ told the apostles that there are “eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Matthew 19:112) Nevertheless, he neither calls them “blessed” nor encourages folks to emulate them. He certainly does not suggest that it should be a requirement for bishops/elders, apostles, or deacons that they be self-made eunuchs. Thus, this passage would be essentially irrelevant to the question, even if it were more blessed to make oneself a eunuch (but compare what the early church thought of self-made eunuchs)

Mr. Kellmeyer continues:

Doesn’t Revelation have a those who refrained from intercourse with women sing a special song to the Lamb that only they can sing?

I answer: again, no. The passage to which you are referring. Revelation 14:1-5 refers to the 144,000. Here’s the passage:

Revelation 14:1-5
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

The part to which Mr. Kellmeyer was trying to refer says that these 144,000 “were not defiled with women.” It does mean “defiled,” that’s not a gloss on the Greek word ἐμολύνθησαν. The verse also clarifies that these 144,000 are “virgins.” So, if one is going to try to argue that this verse is speaking in favor of general celibacy, one must also take the position that marriage is an example of defilement. Such a position is plainly contrary to Scripture, which declares:

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The better understanding of this text is, of course, a figurative understanding. The 144,000 represent the elect. We saw them previously in chapter 7, when they were sealed in their foreheads. Notice that this appears again in the current passage where the men have “his Father’s name written in their foreheads.” One hopes that Mr. Kellmeyer would not take this literally, whether or not he would consider the beasts in the passage literal beasts.

The sense of the purity and virginity of these men has to do with their faithfulness to their betrothed, the lamb to whom they are to be married as the bride of Christ. Thus, they are depicted as not being fornicators who defile themselves, such as with the whore of Revelation 17.

Mr. Kellmeyer continues:

And isn’t it the case that the early Christians who were witnesses to the writing of Scripture, or taught by witnesses to the writing of Scripture, are in the best position to interpret that same Scripture?

I answer:

The Scripture is not only the New Testament, but Old and New together. Some of those who were taught by the Apostles had the same problems understanding the apostles that the apostles had understanding Jesus.

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Nevertheless, even if we did accord a special place of prominence to those so-called apostolic fathers who were allegedly taught by the apostles themselves, or the second generation fathers who were allegedly taught by someone who was taught by an apostle, we find only a few of their writings extant, those that are extant existing with rather troubling textual transmission histories, and even then those mostly addressing issues that don’t have much to do with topic of mandatory celibacy of bishops/elders and deacons.

Mr. Kellmeyer concluded:

You know neither Scripture nor the power of God. You are quite wrong.

I answer:

I’ve demonstrated to the contrary. Mr. Kellmeyer’s rebuke is, of course, paraphrased from either Matthew 22 or Mark 12 (parallel passages) in which Jesus points out that there will be no marriage in heaven:

Matthew 22:29-30
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

One wonders if Mr. Kellmeyer appreciates the impact of this verse on his attempted literal interpretation of the book of Revelation. Recall:

Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

There is a marriage supper there, and a bride, but not after a corporal and carnal manner. Revelation is full of figurative language which should be understood as such, and should be understood consistently with other passages of Scripture, such as:

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

-TurretinFan

To God be the Glory!

Am I Safe from Rome’s Anathemas?

A pseudonymous blogger under the penname Reginald de Piperno (RdP), responding to my opening post in my series on Trent (link to post), stated:

For example, TF claims that he is under the anathema of Trent. But unless he is or was formally Catholic, this is flatly impossible. I do not understand the seeming fondness of some Protestants for wanting to be condemned by the Catholic Church. Perhaps it is some sort of projection issue: these folks despise the Catholic Faith, and so maybe they think that naturally Catholics or the Church ought to despise them in turn. Their protests notwithstanding, it’s just not so, as I’ve said before. This fact does not mean that Protestant error is no longer reckoned to be erroneous. On the contrary: Trent has in no way been rescinded (of course). It simply means that most Protestants today are incapable of being the subject of any Catholic anathema whatever, because they do not meet a fundamental condition: they have never been Catholic. If he wishes to say that his beliefs have been condemned by the Catholic Church, then he would get no argument from me (to the extent that his views are in fact false and actually under formal condemnation).

I answer line by line.

RdP wrote: “For example, TF claims that he is under the anathema of Trent.”

Yes. It’s not just a claim, there is really no reasonable doubt about it.

RdP wrote: “But unless he is or was formally Catholic, this is flatly impossible.”

I don’t give out my background, but I will acknowledge that I have received Trinitarian baptism with water. I think most Roman Catholics would accept that baptism as “valid” whether or not it was performed by a Roman Catholic cleric.

The Code of Canon Law states: “By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.” (Canon 96)

It furthermore states: “The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.” (Canon 204 §1.)

Thus, despite any desire on my part to be affiliated with Rome and her prelate, I am considered by Rome’s current definitions to be a “Catholic” and part of the “Christian faithful.”

I am not, however, in full communion with Rome: “Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.” (Canon 205)

RdP appears to lack this rather fundamental understanding of the scope of Rome’s claims regarding herself. She claims for the pope a recognized headship over the Roman Catholic Church but an unrecognized headship over all those who have been validly baptized. That’s part of the Roman Catholic Church trying to call itself the “catholic church.” The “catholic church” by definition includes within it all Christians, and Rome recognizes as Christians all those who have been validly baptized.

Even if the pope did not claim to be my head, however, there is no limit in Trent’s anathema as to it applying only to the Christian faithful. It says, quite plainly, “If any one saith” not “If any Roman Catholic saith” or “If any Christian saith.”

RdP wrote: “I do not understand the seeming fondness of some Protestants for wanting to be condemned by the Catholic Church.”

I have no particular desire either to be included within Rome’s claims of jurisdiction or to be placed under her condemnation. The facts simply are what they are. I can understand that those seeking to proselytize “Protestants” might like to downplay the condemnation side (for the same reason that some “Protestant” proselytizers don’t like to mention sin) but the facts remain.

RdP wrote: “Perhaps it is some sort of projection issue: these folks despise the Catholic Faith, and so maybe they think that naturally Catholics or the Church ought to despise them in turn.”

One wonders whether RdP thinks that placing someone under an anathema means “despising” that person. If not, one wonders how RdP’s amateurish psycho-analysis is supposed to connect to the matter at hand. It is clear that Rome is attempting to anathematize someone, and that someone is someone who says what I say. Despising or loving is not the issue under discussion.

RdP: “Their protests notwithstanding, it’s just not so, as I’ve said before.”

RdP’s link is to a prior occasion on which he attempted to argue with me about whether Rome considered the Reformers to be Christians. That they did not so consider them could hardly be more clear. I am not going to re-argue that point now. Yet RdP ought to have read the sources he himself relied-upon more closely. For example, the so-called “Catholic Encyclopedia” that he himself quoted notes that: “The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, volume 7, p. 261, in the sub-section of the section on Heresy entitled “Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Heretics.”)

RdP wrote: “This fact does not mean that Protestant error is no longer reckoned to be erroneous.”

“Error” sounds nicer than “heresy,” doesn’t it? One wonders, though, how RdP would answer the question as to whether holding a damnable heresy is still damnable?

RdP wrote: “It simply means that most Protestants today are incapable of being the subject of any Catholic anathema whatever, because they do not meet a fundamental condition: they have never been Catholic.”

See above.

RdP wrote: “If he wishes to say that his beliefs have been condemned by the Catholic Church, then he would get no argument from me (to the extent that his views are in fact false and actually under formal condemnation).”

What is interesting is that Trent’s anathema (at least the one I’ve already discussed) is not against particular beliefs, nor even against particular statements but against the people who make those statements. RdP seems to have missed this fact in his analysis.

Aside from an introductory note, the remainder of RdP’s comments in his post deal with the issue of Trent’s bad faith or ignorance of the Reformed position. He doesn’t offer any arguments on the merits of the issue, and so I’ll simply leave that alone. As to his introductory question regarding being the inspiration for the series, the answer is that he is not. Nevertheless, he may end up being implicated in the discussion, since he has done a number of relatively recent posts on the topic of Trent and Justification.

-TurretinFan

To God be the Glory!

The Triune God of Scripture Lives

The following is a trailer for Dr. James White’s first debate this year with Dan Barker, on the topic: “The Triune God of Scripture Lives.”

The DVD of this debate is available in the Alpha & Omega Ministries Bookstore (link).

To God be the Glory!