gdp's Comments

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : If that\'s Exoneration ...

Tue, 7 May 2013 04:08:16 +0000

"factual statements that are self-contradictory" So much for the law of non-self-contradiction.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Pressing Chris Date's Retreat

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:40:52 +0000

Jacob, Here's why: I find in certain passages a use of "eternal" which is indisputeably referring to an action which occured for only so long but had eternal results (consider Hebrews 5:9, 6:2, and 9:12). Therefore, I lean towards the idea that "punishment" is a process (the process of dying the second time) with eternal consequences (i.e., never rising again, never having life again). Using that logic, you might as well say that Jesus is not God, because I can point to other passages which use "God," of beings that clearly are not the one true God [Exodus 7:1, Psalm 82:6, John 10:34,], that must therefore mean that Jesus is not the one true God, even though he is called "God." Again, semantics is far more complicated than this. Words can have a variety of meanings in a variety of contexts. For example, we know, from our background knowledge that a judge only gives a judgment once [hence, the resultant interpretation in Hebrews 6:2], and we also, from the context of Hebrews 9:12, that this eternal redemption was "obtained" in the past, and hence, it would be impossible for "eternal redemption" to be accomplished perpetually forever [the "once for all" sayings should also tell us that is not what is meant." However, again, in Matthew 25:46 you have a perfect parallel with "eternal life," and no such background knowledge that would even begin to suggest a resultant interpretation of the phrase "eternal punishment." But hey, even if someone could demonstrate beyond dispute that punishment was meant to be taken as a process that lasts forever, that wouldn't hurt the view of annihilationism. Punishment is contrasted with life, and while there are many kinds of punishments (fines, infliction of pain, jail time, infliction of shame, etc), there is only one kind of non-life to something that has been living, and that is death. Simple. Death is not the cessation of existence. Even Jesus said to the man on the cross "Today, you will be with me in paradise." Not, "Today, you will cease to exist." Hence, even in terms of physical death, it is not the cessation of existence. Also, I hope all of you will accept my apology if I have came across as a know-it-all. That was not my intent. I feel very strongly about the accurate handling of scripture, and I am concerned that these issues have not been handled with the kind of care they deserve. We must be wise about how we handle the word of God, and allow for both the beautiful complexity and yet economy of the great gift that God has given us in human language.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Pressing Chris Date's Retreat

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:01:47 +0000

David, Actually, my point in using mass nouns and count nouns was to demonstrate the validity of the lexical/compositional semantics distinction. The point of using mass nouns and count nouns is to take the debate to something that is not in dispute between us, and demonstrate its validity there, and then bring it back to the issue that is in dispute. As to your analysis of "punishment", you're right that it doesn't necessarily have to be punctilliar. But I don't think Date is assuming it's punctilliar since most coniditionalists believe in a durative punishment that has a definite end. True, but, even on that view, "durative with a definite end," it still, it can't fit with the word "eternal!" The point is, that, whatever you take in terms of "punishment," it has to fit with the word eternal! That forces Date to the conclusion that we must be talking about the results of the action. And, as far as Date confusing lexical and compositional semantics, applying the term "Deverbal result noun" to punishment is the heart of the confusion. "Deverbal result noun" is a lexical semantic category, as is "mass noun" and "count noun." Thus, it cannot be applied to the way in which words interact in compositional semantics. Finally, what is my point in pointing out that Date is begging the question? It is a simple matter of economy. You guys are the ones who are saying that we should "rethink hell." So, we *rethink* these other passages, that then gives us the background information that we can read into Matthew 25:46, breaking a perfect parallel??????? This is what you call a "strong" argument????????? As a Christian, I am called to believe what God has communicated to us in the Bible through normal human language. Given the amount of proliferation that is required to hold your position, as I said earlier, I would be seriously in danger of throwing human language to Occam's razor if I held your position.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Pressing Chris Date's Retreat

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:19:38 +0000

It is the same thing with deverbal result nouns. Consider the example of the deverbal result noun "injury" in the following example which you gave: His back was injured during the first quarter of last night's game. During the injury, he also hurt his left forearm. during [-resultant] [+simultaneous with] injury [+resultant] [+harm] In this case, the [resultant] category cancels out the resultant nature of "injury," and all that is left is "simultaneous with the harm." This is clearly the meaning of "during the injury." The reason Date thought that "punishment" is a deverbal result noun is because his conception of punishment is punctilliar. Therefore, to speak of and "eternal punctilliar" action is contradictory. Therefore, he reasons that the eternality must refer to the *results* of the punishment: eternal [+never ending] [+Durative] punishment for sin according to annihilationism [+punctilliar] [+resultative] Hence, on this understanding of "punishment," it would be impossible for a punctilliar action to be durative. Hence, he grabs hold of the resultative nature of the punishment in his system, and then tries to say that it is *this* that is eternal, since the action of punishment is, itself, punctilliar. The problem with this argument is that it is entirely circular. Punishment can go on for a long time, or it can be punctilliar. Annihilationism seems to arbitrarily assume their position is correct, when there is a perfectly normal interpretation of "punishment" that makes a perfect parallel with eternal life, namely, the traditional interpretation. This can be seen very clearly in his analogy that he uses to try to get around Matthew 25:46: If a mechanic were to repair the engine of one’s car, guaranteeing that both the parts and labor will last for a year, one would naturally understand that while the parts themselves would function properly for a year, the laboring would not; the outcome of the labor would last for that period of time. TurretinFan’s test would render the guarantee nonsensical. The issue here would be the interaction of the word "guarantee" and the word "labor." Because the guarantee is known to be longer than the labor, it would produce a conflict: Automechanic labor [+lasting a few days] Guarantee for a year [+lasting for a year] If the guarantee were to be limited by the labor, it would make the phrase "year guarantee" meaningless. Hence, the only way to make sense of the sentence is to take the "resultant" interpretation. However, Date begs the question when he assumes that this is the case for "punishment" in Matthew 25:46. The difference, of course, is that, in the example Date gave, our background knowledge of reality tells us that automechanics only work for days at a time, and not years. However, unless Date can show that the notion of eternal punishment is *inconsistent* with our background knowledge of punishment from the Bible, then he cannot rule out the traditional interpretation of Matthew 25:46, and, indeed, the traditional interpretation would, at that point make the most sense out of the passage, since it provides a perfect parallel to eternal life. If no such cancelling in the semantics of the words can be found, his argument is without merit. I suppose another option would be to treat "sand," "fruit," and, say, "injury" as ambiguous, and polysemous. However, the problem is, that context can affect the meaning of the vast majority of words in the vast majority of languages. Such an analysis would then throw the vast majority of human language into the realm of ambiguity, dangerously coming close to turning human language over to Occam's razor. Allowing for the lexical/compositional semantics distinction is far more economical, but it also means that Date would bear the burden of proof to show that punishment in the Bible is not eternal. If he cannot do this, his position is refuted by Matthew 25:46.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Pressing Chris Date's Retreat

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:18:26 +0000

TurretinFan, I have done much thought on this issue since the Date/Whipps debate came out. Here is my current position. I really do think that Date is engaging in circular reasoning by confusing lexical semantics with compositional semantics. The two are not the same thing. For example, let's take mass nouns and count nouns. The word "fruit" is a mass noun. If I say: Can I have some fruit? The clear mass noun character of "fruit" is apparent. However, what if I say: We will have many different fruits at the festival today. The same thing can be done with words like "sand." It can likewise be pluralized, even though it is a mass noun, and when it is pluralized, it has the sense of "different kinds of" sand. The same thing with fruit. Although it is a mass noun, it can be pluralized, if we are speaking of different kinds of fruit. The point is that these nouns [fruit and sand] are still mass nouns, even though they are placed in a context in which they can speak of different kinds, and thus, can be pluralized. However, they still remain mass nouns. The reason for this is the compositional nature of semantics. Individual words are actually composed of meanings that are much larger in conception than the word itself. For example: Spinster: [+female] [+unmarried] [+Adult] However, we can also have the following: Male spinster Yes, the phrase does exist. In this case, we have the following categories: Male [-female] Spinster: [+female] [+unmarried] [+Adult] Now, the [+female] [-female] semantic markers cancel each other out, and we are left with an adult man who is unmarried. The same thing is true of mass nouns. The mass noun/count noun distinction deals with whether a noun is bounded. For example, if I take away some fruit from a pile of fruit, I still have fruit.. If I add fruit to a pile of fruit, I still have fruit. However, if I have a book, and I rip it in half, I no longer have a book; I have part of a book. If I add another book, I no longer have a book, I have books. Thus, mass nouns are considered "unbounded," and count nouns are "bounded." However, let us say that we put a plural ending on a mass noun such as fruit. You would then have the following: Fruit [-Bounded] [+food] [+seeded] [+taxonomies] -s [+plural] Obviously, in this case, it is difficult to conceive of an unbounded object being plural, but, at this point, there is one element of the semantic range of fruit, and that is that it encompasses many taxonomies. There are different "kinds" of fruit. Because this is the case, the plural ending on "fruit" will get interpreted as "kinds of fruit," given the natural clash between the plural and unbounded nouns. As a side note, one of the reasons I have brought this up is because of the importance of this conception of compositional semantics in dealing with Greg Stafford and his followers. Stafford tries to argue that the θεος in John 1:1 must be either definite or indefinite, because θεος is a count noun. True enough that θεος is a count noun, but that does not describe how the other factors within the context act upon the bounded nature of a count noun. The only reason, in terms of lexical semantics, that a count noun must be definite or indefinite is due to the bounded nature of the count noun itself. Exactly how that bounded nature interacts with other things, such as the Colwell construction, or the context itself, is, to my knowledge, not something that these folks take into account. For example, the word "brick" is a count noun, as adding a brick to an already existing brick gives you "bricks," and cutting a brick in half gives you half a brick. And yet, the following conversation is clearly understandable: That car is headed for the wall at 100MPH. Uh oh, that wall is brick! Now, very clearly, the second speaker is not meaning to imply that the wall is made up of one brick. No, he means us to understand that the material that was used to make the wall is the material that is used to make bricks. In this case, the significance of the material out of which the wall is made to the impending catastrophe will conflict with the bound nature of the term "brick."

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Darryl Hart on American Roman Catholicism

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:37:48 +0000

TurretinFan, You might be interested in this link: http://video.foxnews.com/v/2183241927001/ A Roman Catholic Journalist is being interviewed because he has suggested that the RCC should change its policy on celibate priests. He says that the celibate priesthood is not something that is set in stone, and that the church should open up the priesthood to married men.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : BTR: Canon Debate: Is the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha God\'s word? 01/05 by HealingXJWS | Blog Talk Radio

Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:21:18 +0000

Hope it goes well today, TF! As I said to you in private, the canonization of the Apocrypha is one of the major weaknesses of traditionalist Roman Catholicism. There is simply no reason historically, logically, or exegetically to include the apocrypha in the canon. About the only defense of the canonization of the apocrypha I have ever heard is "because Rome says so." It is completely arbitrary. Hope that comes out in today's debate!

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:42:00 +0000

The problem is not so much theological at this point as it is hermeneutical. The problem is that we see prophecies as a kind of "prediction/fulfillment." However, that is not the way Hebrew prophecy works. Dr. Willem VanGemeren, my professor at Trinity, writes of this when he says: Fulfillment cannot be restricted to Micah’s time, to the postexilic era, or even to the coming of our Lord. It unfolds and clarifies the nature and time of fulfillment in the progress of redemption. I call this process of unfolding progressive fulfillment. The hermeneutics of progressive fulfillment looks at God’s promises as a vine that grows, extends its branches in various directions, bears fruit, and keeps developing. Applying this to redemptive history, I believe that we are still at the stage of branching and budding and that the stage of the mature, productive vine takes us to the second coming of our Lord. The promises of God cannot be reduced to predictions. A prediction limits the word to a particular fulfillment, whereas a promise unfolds progressively over time. A promise is like a rolling snowball in its momentum and significance. Beecher aptly states this point: ‘Every fulfilled promise is a fulfilled prediction; but it is exceedingly important to look at it as a promise, and not as a mere prediction.” Micah encouraged his contemporaries -and all who read his book-to look at the Messiah as the victorious King, the world as the realm of God’s rule, and God’s people as sharing in the victory and glory of their great King. This prophetic word still extends hope to God’s people today. The very fact that the kingdom of God has not yet been fully and visibly established on earth is a motivating factor in hoping and praying that the child born in Bethlehem, Jesus the Christ, may soon come and inaugurate the eternal kingdom on earth [VanGemeren, Willem. Interpreting the Prophetic Word. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids Michigan. 1990. pgs. 82-83] Calvinistic Baptists cannot see that the fulfillment of these prophecies yes is already present and relevant [yes, Christ has come, and has, through his death and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, written his law upon our hearts, and changed us], but one of the differences between the covenants and the better nature of those covenants is in the teleology of those covenants, that is, what they will produce. The one covenant, because it could not produce a change in heart, always resulted in exile. Because the new covenant can produce a change in heart, it will result, at the end of time, in all knowing Christ from the least to the greatest. If you deny that this fulfillment is possible, then you have hyperpreterism staring you right in the face with the prophecies of the new heavens and new earth in the same context as the new covenant. So, no, we *do* recognize what you are saying, but reject it as reductionistic, and inconsistent with your own beliefs and practices. Please, as a brother in Christ, I would implore you to not make these kinds of ridiculous accusations against fellow believers. I don't agree with all of the Presbyterian arguments myself, even though I lean their direction. Still we are all brothers in Christ, and all deeply committed to monergistic salvation, and many of us have defended it publicly. I would implore you to stop the slander, and simply deal with the issue. If you want to say that Presbyterians are inconsistent, then make your argument, and we will see if we can knock it down. The kind of rhetoric in your posts is grossly unhelpful.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:41:33 +0000

Finally, I don't think that it is a matter of not wanting to doctrine to be pure [again, another slanderous assumption]. It is not a matter of, as you say: Infant baptism takes the power and simplicity and gracefulness from biblical doctrine. It affects Christians internally. It downgrades valuation of the word of God. It downgrades the valuation for simply proclaiming the word of God, word for word, to make the call *in the world* where it is supposed to be made. It corrupts the pure and whole biblical doctrine which is Covenant - Federal - Theology based on the Covenant of Redemption made in eternity, the Covenant of Works in the Garden, and the Covenant of Grace in history. Again, more slander. The issue is the administration of the new covenant, and whether it is fulfilled all at once. Be very careful of words like "simplicity." Is it simple, or are you engaging in reductionism? Consider this prophecy of the new covenant: Isaiah 65:17-25 For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. 18 "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness. 19 "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying. 20 "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed. 21 "They will build houses and inhabit them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. 23 "They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them. 24 "It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD. If you say that it is a prophecy of the eternal state alone, then why does it mention youths still dying [v.20]? Why are they building houses and inhabiting them [v.21]? And yet, you have the new heavens and new earth mentioned in this context [v.17]. If the new covenant has been completely fulfilled, then could you please explain why you are not a hyperpreterist who believes that we are living in the new heavens and new earth? The new heavens and new earth are part of the new covenant. Or, take this passage from Isaiah 11: Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Again, in the context of a root sprouting from the seed of Jesse [Isaiah 11:1], and, again, the wicked are not slain, and the poor are not yet judged fairly. Again, if you are going to take your position, I don't see how you could consistently avoid hyperpreterism. If the fullness of the new covenant is here, then we are living in the new heavens and the new earth, and the final judgment has happened. Yet, all of these prophecies of Christ and the new covenant contain a provision for the new heavens and new earth.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:39:04 +0000

ctrace, The authors of that link also cite Meredith Kline. True, but I would still maintain that the preponderance of the sources they are relying upon come before these discoveries, and when they cite people like Kline, it is simply not on the issues I raised, such as the grammar of Genesis 12:1-3 and 17:1-2. The other difficulty is that Kline's area of expertise was not land grants, but Hittite national treaties. While it is true that those are relevant to the study of the Hebrew scriptures, when it comes to the Abrahamic covenant, they are not relevant, because the Abrahamic covenant probably is related to the kudurru land grants rather than the Hittite national treaties. Also, ctrace, you may not be directing your comments to any one individual, but your sweeping generalizations are simply slander. What traditional Presbyterian theologian "I believe their position comes down to a demand that God not be sovereign in grace. They demand regeneration not be monergistic?" That statement is utterly ridiculous. No Presbyterian I have ever met would say that, and many Presbyterians of the past, such as B.B. Warfield have been some of the major defenders of the notion of monergistic salvation, and of God as the one who is sovereign in grace and that regeneration is monergistic. Also, to call something "ad hoc bad doctrine," again, requires proof. If you are complaining about unbelievers being in the covenant, then I agree with Presbyterians that I don't think you can escape that charge either. Are you really suggesting that every person you have ever baptized has persevered unto salvation? That there is no apostasy in a Baptist Church? And if you say that they were never in the covenant, then why did you Baptize them? How is it covenant Baptism when you baptize those who are not in the covenant? The problem, at this point, is with the simple indicatives used in the passages you want to point to. "All *will* know me from the least to the greatest." Not, "ctrace will *think* that they know me from the least to the greatest" or "Calvinistic Baptist churches will *think* that they know me from the least to the greatest." The text doesn't say that. It uses the indicative mood, saying that this is a fact. So, if it is a fact, then why are there still unbelievers who you have baptized in your churches? It simply makes no sense.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:48:42 +0000

ctrace, An argument against infant baptism has to be waged on the ground of the doctrine of regeneration. This is ground paedo-baptists refuse to enter. First of all, I am, myself, not convinced of either position. I would say that a lot of work has yet to be done on the issue of how the covenants relate to each other, as well has how they are to be understood in their ANE context. Secondly, I am *not* afraid to enter that arena. No one who knows this issue should be. In fact, if you didn't notice, I addressed the issue of regeneration in several of my posts, and I would be happy to see your responses, rather than allegations that I refuse to enter an area of discussion that I specifically addressed in one of my posts! In the comments above there is demonstrated a wild non-understanding of covenant theology, and because this is widespread it allows paedo-baptists to play Romanist-like games with doctrine vis-a-vis importing infant baptism via covenant theology; and even claiming - in effect - that covenant theology is the servant of infant baptism. Who said anything about covenant theology being the servant of infant baptism? What I was pointing out is that the Calvinistic Baptist view of the covenants simply does not accord with what we know about the Hebrew Bible in its ANE context. In fact, I even said that this doesn't mean that we should go out and Baptize our infants. Please, remember that we are to be seeking truth, not engaging in false accusations against fellow believers. If you want to refute credo-baptism then get up-to-speed on Covenant - Federal - Theology and refute something like this: http://www.reformedbaptist.net/renihan-presentati... No one is seeking to "refute credo-Baptism," since credo-baptism covers a wide and diverse number of perspectives. For example, I was engaged to a girl who is a Pentecostal, and her view of Baptism was quite different than yours, and yet, she was a credo-Baptist. My parents church, the Church of the Nazarene, is a credo-Baptist church, and yet, they would not hold to your position. What we are dealing with here is a *particular kind* of argument for credo-baptism, namely, the argument of Calvinistic Baptists from the so called "Newness of the new covenant," which forces Calvinistic Baptists to presuppose things about the Hebrew Scriptures that I would say are demonstrably untrue. In fact, the Paper you linked to here contains many things that have since been refuted as our knowledge of both Biblical Hebrew and the ANE land grant background context of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant, for example, has increased. For example, from the paper you have linked to: To put it simply, in the Abrahamic, God promised Abraham a land, nation, and kingship, and in the Mosaic, God conditioned the enjoyment of those promises. As I pointed out above, when one understands the sequences of volatives that occur in Genesis 12:1-3 and 17:1-2, it becomes clear that there were conditions to the Abrahamic covenant from the beginning [for example, Abraham both leaving his homeland in faith, and walking before God and being blameless]. In fact, all land grants in the ANE, even the eternal land grants, are conditional. The problem is that the authors who are writing this are citing men like Voss and Bavinck, all of who lived long before these advances in Hebrew Grammar and Assyriology which have allowed us to better understand land covenants such as the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, advanced Hebrew Grammars, such as Waltke and O'Connor even cite Genesis 17:1-2 as a clear example of a purpose clause with these sequences of volatives [Waltke O'Connor 34.6a [pgs. 577-578]. We should be seeking truth here, not engaging in rhetoric games. I believe that a Calvinistic Baptist could rehabilitate their position, taking into account those sequences of volatives. They would have to find some other way of distinguishing between the old and new covenants that would include infants in the one and exclude them in the other. I do not hold their position, because I believe they have failed to do that in a way that comports with the texts of the covenants themselves in their contexts. Still, I leave open the possibility that they might, and I don't believe they are idiots at all. This debate should be iron sharpening iron, and not a bunch of rhetorical games based upon statements of intimidation such as "This is ground paedo-baptists refuse to enter. " No, perhaps we have entered that ground, and we just disagree with your conclusions, and the conclusions of the gentlemen you cited. Maybe we have valid reasons for rejecting them, and maybe we don't, but it is simply not a matter of us "refusing to enter" anything.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:00:49 +0000

Another crucial difference between the old and new covenants is the ability to produce faith in the heart. The Old Covenant, because of its mere types and shadows, had no mechanism, such as the death of Christ, by which to produce this faith. The new covenant, because of its relationship to the death of Christ, *is* capable, through the work of Jesus Christ, of producing faith to those who are part of its covenant. That is why it is totally wrong to say that an eschatological understanding of Hebrews 8:11 destroys the polemic of the author of the book of Hebrews, because the Old Covenant could not produce faith, and it therefore ended up in two exiles because of it. In contrast, the New Covenant will produce a situation where all know Christ from the least to the greatest at his second coming. It will be a complete success, because, in this covenant, you have the blood of Christ working the salvation of his people. This also fits well with the context of the priesthood, and the fact that the priesthood of Christ is better than the priesthood of the OT, which is the context of Hebrews 8 [both before and following I might add]. Christ's priesthood will accomplish something [all knowing Christ from the least to the greatest] that the Old Covenant priesthood, which produced nothing but two exiles, could not. So, no, I think both the reality of our inability to keep the law perfectly as well as the solution being salvation through faith in God are present in both scriptures. The difference is the kind of kingdom we are talking about, and whether the mechanism to produce that faith was present in the Old Covenant. The land promises were a mere earthly type of the true promises that we now possess, and which will keep growing until they reach their climax at the second coming. The priesthood was an earthly type of the true priesthood which alone can produce faith in the heart, either faith which looked forward to the coming of Christ [as in the OT saints], or faith which looks back upon the coming of Christ [such as our own faith].

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:00:33 +0000

Natamllc, I have not heard of Dr. Bailey, but, from his website, it appears his area of expertise is more related to the New Testament: http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm What seems to me to be in play here is a trap of sorts? While the land covenants were necessary for those for whom God made land covenant promises too, would you not say that simply was to open the eyes of the blind as a parallel experience as the Law keepers were to have their eyes opened to the reality that they could not keep the Law because of the weakness of their flesh/our flesh? I would simply point you back to what the text you cited says: Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. The notion of the reality that man cannot keep the law in and of himself, and the need for faith in God is something that is all over the Hebrew scriptures. For example, David says: Psalm 130:3-8 If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? 4 But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared. 5 I wait for the LORD, my soul does wait, And in His word do I hope. 6 My soul waits for the Lord More than the watchmen for the morning; Indeed, more than the watchmen for the morning. 7 O Israel, hope in the LORD; For with the LORD there is lovingkindness, And with Him is abundant redemption. 8 And He will redeem Israel From all his iniquities. Habakkuk 2:2-4 Then the LORD answered me and said, "Record the vision And inscribe it on tablets, That the one who reads it may run. 3 "For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward the goal and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay. 4 "Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith. Also, while it is too long to post, think of David in Psalm 51. The man confesses his sin, not just regarding Uriah, but also confessing that he is a sinner from his mother's womb. He trusts in God to create a clean heart, and renew a right spirit. I would say that what is different is the types and shadows. We are not looking forward to an earthly kingdom on a plot of land over in the middle east. We are looking forward to a heavenly kingdom, one which will be ruled by God himself. That kingdom, although fully instituted by Christ, has not been fully realized, and it is the full realization of that kingdom which we as Christians look forward to. The plot of land given to the Jews was a mere shadow of the promise of this kingdom which is now present. Hence, just as faith is required to be a part of the kingdom of God which Christ inaugurated, faith was required to truly be a part of the earthly kingdom which God set up as a shadow of the kingdom which Christ set up. While this gets distorted by the Jews in their unbelief, thinking that they own the land simply because of their linage, that was not the original intent. That is why you had the exile, and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. God calls his covenant members to faith, and without that faith, you do not have the blessings of the covenant, including the land.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:18:53 +0000

Worse than that, this concept of faith being required to have the land promises is explicitly born out in many texts in the Torah. For example: Exodus 19:5-6 'Now then, *if* you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, *then* you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." It is only if Israel obeys God's voice that they will be his kingdom of priests and holy nation. This is also born out by statements in the Prophets such as this one in Ezekiel: Ezekiel 33:24-28 "Son of man, they who live in these waste places in the land of Israel are saying, 'Abraham was only one, yet he possessed the land; so to us who are many the land has been given as a possession.' 25 "Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "You eat meat with the blood in it, lift up your eyes to your idols as you shed blood. Should you then possess the land? 26 "You rely on your sword, you commit abominations and each of you defiles his neighbor's wife. Should you then possess the land?"' 27 "Thus you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "As I live, surely those who are in the waste places will fall by the sword, and whoever is in the open field I will give to the beasts to be devoured, and those who are in the strongholds and in the caves will die of pestilence. 28 "I will make the land a desolation and a waste, and the pride of her power will cease; and the mountains of Israel will be desolate so that no one will pass through. Notice the repetition of "should you possess the land" [והארץ תירשו]? The answer is obviously given when God says that he will make the land a desolation, so desolate that no one will pass through. It sounds like he is kicking them out of *his* land, and telling them that the answer to whether they should possess the land is "no." The reality is that, when we examine the Abrahamic covenant both in its original context, and in its ANE context, we find that the exile was God taking his land from those who thought they owned the land because they were already circumcised in flesh, but never circumcised in heart. It is a word for word refutation of the Calvinistic Baptist perspective. Hence, you did not have the land simply because you were circumcised. Faithfulness to God was required of every circumcised person before they would truly have the land promises. This is the one thing about Calvinist Baptist theology that I believe is absolutely indefensible. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying, because of this, go out and Baptize your infants. However, the notion of the Old Covenant having certain members who had the land promises but were not faithful to God is simply indefensible exegetically and historically. The Hebrew scriptures do not teach this, and you cannot find a single example of it outside of the Hebrew Bible in the ANE. It is a totally foreign concept, and I wish Calvinistic Baptists would abandon it, as they don't really need it for their position anyway. Come up with some other way of distinguishing between the two covenants, one that matches the exegesis of the text, and the history of the time.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Rebuttal to Hubner\'s Response to DeYoung

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:18:32 +0000

Having studied ancient Near Eastern languages, there is a lot of background material that is often missed in these kinds of discussions. Hubner's assumption seems to be that faith was not required to hold the land promises. The more we learn about these land promises from the Ancient Near East, the more we find that this is simply an indefensible statement. The issue centers around the covenants which most closely parallel the Abrahamic covenants, and that is the kudurru. Kudurru covenants, however, are *always* conditional, even the eternal land grants. The main condition in each of these covenants is faithfulness to the king, and if those who held the land became unfaithful to the king, the land went back to the king. However, interestingly enough, if the following generation was faithful, that faithful generation would receive the land back. Hence, one can say that the land grant God gave to the people of Israel was conditional in a sense [it required faith], and it was unconditional in another sense [only God could bring that faith to their heart in regeneration]. However, it is one thing to show that this concept existed in the ANE, it is another to show it is there in the Hebrew Bible. The crucial thing to see is that the Abrahamic covenants in both chapter 12 and chapter 17 begin with purpose clauses which lay out conditions. The crucial element of this is the sequence of volatives: imperative...waw+cohortative. When you have volatives switching person like this with a waw in between them, the net result is a purpose clause. So, in Genesis 12:1-2 you have the following sequence: לך...ואעשך...ואברכך...ואגדלה...והיה It is interesting, because the cohortative looses the final he when the ending is applied. However, ואגדלה is clearly a cohortative, as you have the he at the end of the verb. Also, is an imperative, and yet the meaning is very clearly "so you will be a blessing." Again, if we are switching from a first to second person volative, that would make sense. However, it is the initial switch form the second person לך to the first person ואעשך which is crucial here. If this is the case, then the translation would be "so that I will make you." Hence, the full translation would be: Go from your land, your clan, and the house of your father, so that I will make you a great nation, and bless you, and make your name great so that you will be a blessing. However, if this is correct, then it makes Abraham becoming a great nation, and being a blessing to all dependent upon leaving his land. Now, obviously, it was by faith that this happened, but the blessing of the covenant is still based upon Abraham's faith. It gets even worse when we start dealing with Genesis 17. Here, in the context of the land promises, we have the exact same kind of sequence: היה...ואתנה...וארבה Again, you have the imperative היה followed by two cohortatives, ואתנה and וארבה again separated by a waw. If this is the case, then the resulting translation would be: Walk before me and be blameless, so that I will confirm my covenant between me and you and multiply you exceedingly. Again, this is in the context of the land promises. The condition of the covenant with Abraham was Abraham's faith [walking before God and being blameless]. This condition, just as in the land grants of the ANE, would be passed along from generation to generation. This can also be found in the text as well. In the story, God promises to bless Sarah and to give her a son, and make her the mother of many nations. Abraham laughs asking whether someone as old as he can bear a son. Then in 17:18 Abraham says, "O that Ishmael would live before you!" Now, the only way to take that is a reference back to "walk before me and be blameless." Put another way, if Hubner is correct, why would Abraham have to utter these words? Wouldn't Ishmael have the land promises simply by virtue of being a biological child?

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Authority Granted to Judge what Paul Wrote ...

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:24:04 +0000

Also, the problem with the idea that Paul is alluding to Jeremiah 18 is that Jeremiah 18 is not talking about the eternal condemnation of people. It is speaking about when nations either turn from wickedness to righteousness, or from righteousness to wickedness [vrs. 7-10]. The point of the passage is to get Israel to repent of their sin, and turn from their wickedness. He says that these will be the punishments [to tear down and destroy] if they do not repent, and if they do repent he will build them up and plant them. However, the issue is not repentance, but hardness of heart in Romans 9, and the accursing of Paul's kinsmen. We also are not in the context of it not depending upon the willing and running of man. We are dealing here with how God relates to men in time, and temporally punishes them for their sin. The notion of reaping what you sow comes to mind. Hence, other than the imagery of the potter and the clay, there is no parallel between these passages. However, there are other intertestamental literature which mentions the potter and the clay in this way that is a far better candidate for being the background for Paul's statement. Consider this: Sirach 33:11-14 Yet with his great knowledge the LORD makes men unlike; in different paths he has them walk. 12 Some he blesses and makes great, some he sanctifies and draws to himself. Others he curses and brings low, and expels them from their place. 13 Like clay in the hands of a potter, to be molded according to his pleasure, So are men in the hands of their Creator, to be assigned by him their function. 14 As evil contrasts with good, and death with life, so are sinners in contrast with the just; That fits much better with Paul's notion of why some are accursed, and others are not. This notion probably developed into the Qumran community's views on predestination which, again, is individual. Then there is this: Throughout history, Jacob’s family resisted the purposes of the covenant God, yet the Lord endured them and did not destroy them, in order to bring His purposes to pass. His purpose was to "make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy." The "vessels of wrath" are not individual reprobates, but the unfaithful Jewish people. I must confess, I don't know where they are getting this. The whole point is that Pharaoh himself is a vessel of wrath, and those Jews who do not believe [verses 1-5] are likewise vessels of wrath. I is Paul really weeping his eyes out for a nameless, faceless group of people? And how can one translate this passage as "although willing to display his wrath" when you have this citation: Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." Is the demonstration of God's power in Pharaoh an "although" here? Was not God's point that, in bringing down the king of Egypt, all of the nations would fear him? And isn't that exactly what happened when Israel entered the land? Did not nations fear them because of what happened in Egypt? Again, the problem is with all of these churches that deny Sola Scriptura is that they have to read backgrounds into the text that the text itself will not allow. They cannot allow the context of the text itself to control exactly which literature they are trying to parallel, and how Paul's argument flows from verse 1 to verse 23. First it must be about salvation, then it must be about nations, then it must be about individuals who harden themselves first, and then we must return to nations. You cannot read this text consistently as a synergist, from verses 1-23, and allow Paul to define his terms from verse 1 on through. That is why Romans 9 will always be a thorn in the side of all synergists, including Greek Orthodox. However, I would say that you should get John Piper's book on Romans 9, The Justification of God. There is almost no argument against the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9 that is not brought up and refuted in that book. It is probably the best book John Piper has ever written. God Bless, Adam

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Authority Granted to Judge what Paul Wrote ...

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:23:15 +0000

As far as the hardening of Pharaoh, again, Piper has completely ripped that stuff apart. If this is just a matter of Pharaoh being stubborn, and God having nothing to do with it, the objection of injustice with God makes no sense. Paul has a ready-made answer to that, if it is simply a matter of Pharaoh's own stubbornness. However, it is also wrong to say that Pharaoh hardened his heart first: Exodus 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Then, at the beginning of chapter 5, you have: Exodus 5:1-2 And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness.'" 2 But Pharaoh said, "Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and besides, I will not let Israel go." Now, obviously, Pharaoh's heart is not "soft" here. However, this comes only a few verses after God says that *he* will harden his heart. In fact, what is interesting is, in these passages about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, you quite often [I would even say most of the time] have the phrase appended to the incident "as the Lord God had said." For example: Exodus 7:13 Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. Exodus 7:22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same with their secret arts; and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. Exodus 9:35 Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses. Notice how even one of these [Exodus 8:15] is of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. The problem is that God *never* said Pharaoh would harden his own heart. The only statements we find God making is that *He* would harden Pharaoh's heart.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Authority Granted to Judge what Paul Wrote ...

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:22:39 +0000

This, however, is something I have never heard before: This text has often been used to prove monergism over and against synergism, because it allegedly demonstrates that human freedom has absolutely no role in salvation. Actually, this constitutes a failure to read Paul as a Jew. There was a common idiom in the Hebrew Scriptures known as the "negation idiom." This meant that when one aspect of something was to be emphasized, it would be phrased as a "this, not this", even though both components were actually present. For example, God says through the Prophet Hosea, "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6) We know, in fact, that both love and sacrifice are essential, for the Apostle Paul himself affirms that there is no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). Or note what God said through Jeremiah, "For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’" (Jeremiah 7:22-23) We know that God in fact did both. These are "negation idioms" and they are peculiar to Hebrew thought. Paul, as a Jew writing against the backdrop of the Jewish Scriptures, follows this precise format in Romans 9:16. The passage fails as a proof for absolute monergism. Of course, this totally ignores the whole context of "Before they were born or had done anything good or evil" and "That God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works." Obviously, in the other two instances, this kind of "negation idiom" is understood to be a flouting of the Gricean maxim of truthfulness, because of the background assumption that God knows everything, and that he has commanded people to sacrifice and to bring burnt offerings. However, there is no flouting of the Gricean maxims, because the whole context has gone out of its way to prove that it was "before they were born or had done anything good or evil" and that it is "not because of works." It only strengthens the notion that Paul is ruling out human effort, as he is placing the choice before someone is born, and making it totally independent of their works.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin : Authority Granted to Judge what Paul Wrote ...

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:22:03 +0000

Midas, I don't know of TurretinFan will answer, but the article you cited is refuted very handily in John Piper's The Justification of God. The real problem is the fact that verses 1-5 are addressing individual Jews, and the fact that these individual Jews are accursed: Romans 9:1-5 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. If Paul has grief and concern, not for nations, but for individuals, then very clearly, he is not talking about nations. He is not even talking about groups. Also, if it is just a matter of covenant faithfulness, and not simply a matter of salvation, then why is Paul so upset here in this passage? Is he upset because God is not keeping his covenant? No, very clearly, he is upset because there are certain Jews who will not believe, and thus, will be lost forever. This forms the basis for Paul's statement in verse 6, that the word of God has not failed. If God has given all of these promises to the Jews, then why is it that there are some who do not believe? Has the word of God failed? Paul says that it has not, because not all Israel is truly Israel. Hence, the "Israel" we are talking about here is those who are saved, those who are not of Israel are those who are accursed [i.e., the Jews in verses 1-5]. Verses 1-5 must be taken into account in any discussion of Romans 9. Hence, what Paul is doing is taking passages that apply to nations, and applying them directly to those who are accursed, and those who are part of the true Israel. Obviously, this would make sense, as he views the elect as the true Israel, and the non-elect as not being Israel. Hence, the nation imagery would then be taken and applied to *these* two groups of people.

American Vision : Driving the Left and Right Crazy

Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:18:02 +0000

I agree with you, Gary. Glenn Beck has done more to expose the weaknesses in our thinking on government than all of the liberals combined; he has singlehandedly brought serious damage to racial politics-and all of this while evangelicals have done...just what exactly? We have the truth, and someone without the truth is standing out there on the front lines doing what Glenn Beck is doing. It is very sad. God Bless, Adam