I have been busy lately, but I will surely resume my series through the New City Catechism when I have more free time.
In the meantime, Dr. James White with Turretinfan has recently reviewed Jason Stellman's apostasy from the Faith here, here and here. It is surely illuminative and sad to see someone fall away from the Faith, and may God bring Stellman back to the true church and salvation in Jesus Christ alone.
XXIX The promises of the covenant of grace are not absolutely and simply universal because in the Old Testament they were not promulgated to all (Dt. 7:7; Ps. 147:19, 20; Acts 14:16; 17:30). Nor are they promulgated in the New Testament, since it is plain that the gospel was preached successively and there are still many nations to whom that preaching neither formerly, nor at this day, has reached. Rather the promises are only relatively and limitedly universal from the twofold manner of the divine dispensation; the one external as to obligation (which is extended indisciminately without distinction to classes of individuals, although not to individuals of classes); the other internal (as to application and fruit) with respect to all and each believer, without distinction of nation, sex or age and condition. Hence frequently that universality is restricted to believers from the Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:22, 23; 10:12; Acts 10:43; 13:43; Jn. 3:16). And the nature of the promises (which can only be received by faith) demands this (Gal. 3:13; Rom. 4:13). Now all men have not faith (2 Thess. 3:2), but only the elect (Tit. 1:1,2). And these are the true and proper object of them, who on that account are called "the children of promise" (Rom. 9:6, 7).
XXX. Nor can it be said that the promises are universal of themselves and from the intention of God, inasmuch as God seriously wishes all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but that all do not obtain it, is accidental on account of the wickedness and unbelief of men, who obstinately resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his operation. For it is falsely supposed that God seriously intends the salvation of all; this cannot be said of those whom he reprobated from eternity and to whom he wishes to give neither the gospel nor faith, without which the promise can either be known nor received. (2) Although it is true that men resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his work, it is no less true that God does not furnish to all that grace by which the resistance of the hear may be taken away; that this is the special gift of God (Mt. 13:11; Rom. 11:7), which destroys the universality of the promise.
— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elentic theology, 12.6. 29-30
Contrast this with John Murray:
(3) Our Lord himself in the exercise of his messianic prerogative provides us with an example of the foregoing as it applies to the matter of salvation. He says expressly that he willed the bestowal of his saving and protecting grace upon those whom neither the Father nor he decreed thus to save and protect.
— John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel. Accessed here.
Notice the careful distinction that Turretin makes. Turretin speaks about the free offer of the Gospel strictly in terms of obligation to all classes of people without distinction. Murray however collapses the decretal and preceptive will in the majority report he authored. While claiming the free offer is grounded only in the decretal will, by the end of the report the two wills are confused. While claiming it is to all men without distinction in the beginning, towards the end he speaks of God desiring particular people to be saved. All of such confusion coalesces into statement 3 in the conclusion of the majority report. Does God will the salvation of people whom he does not will to save, as statement 3 asserts?
Far better is the minority report, which preserves the clear precision that Turretin is known for. The free offer of the Gospel is not denied, provided it is clearly explicated in terms of God's preceptive will towards men in general without distinction, sinners qua sinners. Thus, God sincerely calls all men to repent, but God does not call anyone in particular sincerely. Rather, the offer goes out to all, and Man have to personally appropriate Law and Gospel in order to receive this universal Gospel offer
With Murray's confusion, is it any wonder when many people do not accept this doctrine? Irrationalism is a sin just as much as Rationalism. To accept an irrational doctrine is to mock God, and Christ who is the eternal Logos. Christian truth may be trans-rational, but never irrational.
Here is a shout out for my friend who is thinking of starting a new confessional Reformed church in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio. His website can be found here.
If anyone is in the Cincinnati area and is looking for a confessional Reformed church, please contact him about the matter.
Dr. Michael Horton has done an interesting book review of the book Kingdom through Covenant here. An excerpt:
For the seriousness with which it handles the issues, its depth of research and analysis, its approach on many issues, and the respectful description of alternative positions, Kingdom through Covenant strikes me as a model for the deeper and richer conversations that we need in our circles. However, since I'm offering a review from a traditional "covenant theology" perspective, I will skip over a host of edifying discoveries and get right to the point.
If I understand it correctly, the main argument of the authors is that dispensationalism and covenant theology both fail to read the Bible in a sufficiently typological way (pointing to Christ), though at different points: an unconditional and inviolable promise of either an ethnic people and geo-political land or of a "genealogical principle" that underwrites the baptism of covenant children and a "mixed body" ecclesiology. Consequently, covenant theology results in a one-to-one correspondence between circumcision and baptism, Israel and the church.
[more]
I have finally received back the last of my papers to be returned from last semester. The paper is entitled Gender Role: Ordained Order of Mankind to the Creator, being an exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:8-15. The paper can be found here. An excerpt:
The issue of women ordination in particular and women ministry in general is a hotly debated issue since the 1950s. With the rise of Feminism in the general culture, the Feminist movement has also impacted even professing Evangelical and Reformed churches. Numerous articles and books have been written on this issue, and it has generated controversy in churches and denominations. With the splitting of Evangelicalism into approximately two camps on the issue of women in the church, namely Egalitarians (“Biblical Feminists”) and Complementarians, accusations and counter-accusations have been made regarding the compromises and distortions of biblical teachings done by the other camp. Recently, egalitarian theologian William David Spencer has formulated a document entitled “An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity,” in which he accuses Complementarians of embracing Subordinationism in order to prop up their belief in the submission of wives to their husbands. Such a charge has been made before, and it is easily refuted.
[more]
This is my modernization of the hymn I Greet Thee, My Sure Redeemer Art, as found in the OPC Trinity Hymnal here. It would be very helpful to remove as much as possible all the Thees and Thous from hymns, as I believe we do not live in the 16th - 18th centuries anymore. Also, does anyone know why the choice of a slow tempo for hymns?
I Greet You, my Sure Redeemer Are
1:
D G Em A D
I greet You, who my sure Redeemer are
G Em A
My only trust and Savior of my heart,
D Bm E A
Who pain did undergo for my poor sake;
D G A D
I pray You’ll from our hearts all cares to take.
2:
You are the King of mercy and of grace,
Reigning omnipotent in every place;
So come, O King, and our whole being sway;
Shine on us with the light of Your pure day.
3:
You are the life, by which alone we live,
And all our substance and our strength receive;
O comfort us in death's approaching hour,
Strong-hearted then to face it by Your pow'r.
4:
You have the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness You have and no bitterness;
Make us to taste the sweet grace found in Thee
And ever stay in Your sweet unity.
5:
Our hope is in no other save in Thee;
Our faith is built upon Your promise free;
O grant to us such stronger hope and sure
That we can boldly conquer and endure.
Trevin Wax, whose blog is on the Gospel Coalition Compromisers (TGC) website, has decided to complain about the perceived "tone" of two 5-point Calvinists who have taken a stand against 4-point "Calvinism." Dr. James White spent about 45 minutes of his Diving Line podcast responding to Wax's whining.
While there are a lot of issues with 4-point "Calvinism," or Amyraldism, my main response here is with regards to Wax's mild rant and the attitude he brings to the entire issue.
Before I begin, let me first say that I don't know Trevin Wax. His person is not the issue; his article is.
First, we note that Wax wrote this:
Instead of asking, “Why do you reject the unlimited atonement view?,” the question is framed in a way that treats four-point Calvinists like they have simply failed to adequately consider all the relevant points. The implication is this: Oh, those four-pointers are good guys, but they obviously haven’t thought it through as well as we have.
No, my brothers. There are plenty of us who reject the traditional Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement precisely because we have adequately considered the arguments and have found them wanting. The reason I stand with theologians like J.C. Ryle, Millard Erickson, Gregg Allison, Bruce Demarest, and Bruce Ware is because their argumentation is more persuasive than yours.
Wax here is complaining about the language that Barrett and Nettles used, that 4-pointers have not thought through the issues clear enough. In reply, we must ask, would Wax prefer them to express their view in these other ways?
4-pointers reject the Bible
4-pointers reject the clear teaching of Scripture for their emotional feelings
4-pointers refuse to consider the alternative option because they are emotionally unable to bring themselves to consider the other option objectively
Positing a failure to be logically consistent is by far the most charitable judgment given to 4-pointers by those of us who are convinced of the biblical teaching of Definite Atonement. We are unable to say that Amyraldism in any of its forms is biblically warranted or legitimate, and asking for us to think of it as a possible biblical option with just as much legitimacy as consistent Calvinism is to ask us to betray our conviction of what Scripture teaches.
The problem with Wax is the absolutely emotional nature of his article. He claims that there are universal texts that Calvinists then are forced to fit into "tight, particular shoes." That itself is false. There are NO universal texts in the Bible. Just because he thinks there are does not mean that by fiat they exist.
Wax claims that he, along with other 4-pointers, have "adequately considered the arguments and found them wanting." No argument however has he put forward as to why these arguments are considered wanting. If really there is a known-down argument for universal atonement, where is it? Throwing big names at us don't mean anything.
We are not to wear our emotions on our sleeves, especially when we are dealing with what the Bible teaches. Wax claims that Amyraldism is biblical. Fine, prove it! If you are so certain that your system of doctrine is biblical, surely you can defend it according to the Scriptures? Instead of doing so, why are you whining on a blog post about you taking offence at a perceived "tone" of condescension?
That's the problem I have found with quite a few of these "New Calvinists." They always claim they are reading the Bible (so by implication are they accusing me of NOT reading my Bible?) and thus they found all these particular doctrines they are subscribing to. Yet, none of them that I have interacted with wants to interact with me on the biblical basis for their particular doctrines? You would have thought they since they are convinced of their views according to Scripture, they could defend their views according to Scripture? Nope! Its basically "Ego dixi, finitus est" (I have spoken, it ends). So are we or are we not trying to be biblical? Or does "tone" triumph over the truth of Scripture? Or maybe you are your own mini-pope, that your impression of what the truth of Scripture is is THE true interpretation of Scripture? Who is your ultimate authority in interpreting Scripture? Is it your own intellect, or the Holy Spirit using the means of the Church to sharpen our interpretation of Scripture and correct our blind spots?
The Protestant view of Sola Scripture does not make everyone their own mini-popes shouting "here I stand" and then claim that their conscience bind them to whatever interpretation they found through reading the Bible by themselves. No, that is Solo Scriptura. The Protestant view of Sola Scriptura states that the conscience of believers are to be bound to the interpretation of the Scripture they found through reading the Scriptures in the power of the Holy Spirit in interaction with the Church. The idea that anyone can just claim to "read the Bible" and then state that they have "adequately considered the arguments and found them wanting" is contrary to the Protestant hermeneutic. Whoever thinks their system is biblical, let them put forward their case and argue for it. The Reformed Churches and their descendants have rejected Amyraldism as error, while not considering it outright heresy. The onus is on those who claim otherwise to defend their positions, not whine about perceived slights due to our rejection of their errant doctrines.
So no, I will not defend my Amyraldian friends from the charge that your positions leads to universalism. To do so is ridiculous, since we are convinced that is contrary to biblical truth. If none of them desire to biblically defend their positions, perhaps they are not actually following Scripture but rather their emotional gut feelings.
Professor James K.A. Smith has written a succinct open letter that expresses the practical problems with most of contemporary worship in evangelical churches, which can be seen here. An excerpt:
Dear Praise Band,
I so appreciate your willingness and desire to offer up your gifts to God in worship. I appreciate your devotion and celebrate your faithfulness--schlepping to church early, Sunday after Sunday, making time for practice mid-week, learning and writing new songs, and so much more. Like those skilled artists and artisans that God used to create the tabernacle (Exodus 36), you are willing to put your artistic gifts in service to the Triune God.
[more]
The first episode of No Compromise Radio has finally aired. The issue is a bit dated, but the principles are still very important.
No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.
[HT: Aomin.org]
Once upon a time, to hate someone means you wish them evil, especially that they die. Now however, the word "hate" has been redefined to mean "doing anything that makes me feel hurt." In this light, James R. White has done a Dividing Line episode on this issue, here.
Homosexual activists have been up in arms over the spin of Chic-Fill-A president's remarks re-posted on the Baptist Press. The personal remarks of its president has now created a firestorm of criticism from the LGBT and their allies, with threats of boycotts, demonstrations and counter-demonstrations from conservatives.
Politically, this whole issue is none of my concern. The focus of those ministering the Word is the Scriptures, not politics. I have no desire to take part in the "culture wars." There is the City of God, and there is the City of Man, and the two are not to be conjoined.
That said, it is naive therefore to think that those in the ministry can just play the 2-Kingdoms card to try to appear non-partisan. True, we are to be non-partisan politically, but let us remember that homosexuality is a MORAL issue first and foremost. Wanting to distance oneself from political activism from the "Christian right" does not give one the right to throw stones at them in the process. And trying to appear neutral over a moral issue is not biblical.
The question here is not whether one thinks that one should be politically involved in opposing the gay agenda. The question is not whether one desires to join in the latest skirmish of the "culture wars." The question is: Does one take a stand on the right to express biblical truths?
It is noted that in the interview, Chick-Fill-A's president did not even mention homosexuality, although it certainly is implied. The reactions of the homosexuals have once again given proof of the fascist nature of the movement. The homofascists are all about silencing opposing opinions. They are manifestly intolerant of all other opinions and desire to control the thoughts of everyone. In their twisted and warped worldview, anyone who does not celebrate homosexuality is guilty of "hate crimes."
Those who try to play the 2-Kingdom card need to really think this through. Does having a desire to be non-partisan mean that we therefore do not take a stand on a moral issue, which due to its nature has been very much politicized? If we do not take a stand on this issue, what happens when the homofascists attacked Christian pastors for saying homosexuality is wrong? Oh wait, it probably has happened already. Now, is that a political issue, or a moral issue?
Do our desires to appear non-partisan become so overwhelming that we therefore have almost nothing to say about homosexuality, since homosexuality has become so politicized? When asked about homosexuality, are we going to hedge so much and qualify ourselves so much, to the point of dying the death of a thousand qualifications, in order to try to appear "non-partisan"? Has the desire to be "non-partisan" becomes an idol in and of itself, with the pendulum swinging from idolatry to "Christian right activism" to idolatry in "non-partisanship"?
Taking a stand on homosexuality, and opposition to homosexual bigotry, is the biblical thing to do, regardless of whether it seems partisan. To be focused on the Scriptures and not be entangled in politics means one must be trans-partisan, not non-partisan. In other words, we expressed moral truths regardless of where they stand in the political realm. We should not try to express moral truths to appear non-partisan, and thus try to win over both sides by showing how neutral we are, perpetually sitting on the fence on such issues.
Morally, the homofascists are in the wrong. It is morally right to call out their bigotry and hate speech, and thus a moral imperative for Christians to do so if they have the ability to. This has nothing to do with being of the "Christian right." This is a moral issue, not a political issue.
That said, that is the limit to the Christian's moral response. After that is all politics. I am indifferent to the "Chick-Fill-A Day" campaign. I may or may not eat at Chick-Fill-A on Aug 1st. Being trans-partisan means that as far as I'm concerned, Chick-Fill-A is just another fast food joint which offers nice chicken. If I go, I go there for the food, not because they are for or against homosexuality. In this light, to boycott Chick-Fill-A because one is so fed up with the culture wars as opposition to the "Religious Right" just shows that one is not truly following 2-Kingdoms principles. Such a one is still reactionary to partisanship, and has not the ability to transcend it.
I have come to understand the gospel in terms of the New Covenant gift of the Spirit, procured through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, who causes fruit to be borne in our lives by reproducing the image of the Son in the adopted children of the Father - Jason Stellman [Source]
Stellman's apostasy from the Faith has been saddening. In this quote, one sees the failure to properly distinguish terms and the different stages of redemption.
The Holy Spirit does give us the "New Covenant gift of the Spirit" and so on. But the fruits of the Gospel is not the same as the Gospel itself. Stellman does not seem to be properly distinguishing terms and concepts, but just mix everything into one big blur.
Terms are important in theological discussions. For example, Christians have always believed in salvation by works — Christ's work, not ours. Our Spirit-wrought works are a posteriori evidence of faith, and therefore it can be said that it is a posteriori necessary for salvation, while for Romanists Spirit-wrought works are co-terminus with grace unto salvation. The usage of terms and the order of the stages of salvation make all the difference between orthodoxy and heresy.
It is not enough for Stellman to say that the Gospel includes all these spiritual things which he mentioned. Stellman has to show that this constitute the crux of the Gospel and not the fruit of the Gospel. If Stellman merely shows that the Gospel message includes all these in the text of Scripture, it would only go to show that he continues to fail to properly distinguish terms.
One criticism leveled at Protestants by the new Roman apoologists is that there is no essential difference between Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). This allegedly one of the reasons behind Stellman's apostasy, and likely behind Joshua Lim's and countless others' too. The sad thing is that the whole argument is rationalistic to the core and flawed throughout. As such, it shouldn't be given any credence by those who claim to believe in the power and presence of God and the Holy Spirit.
The neo-Romanist argument (Part 1)
According to these neo-Roman apologists, the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura is that in the former, the individual is directly "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority." In the latter, the individual does so indirectly, by submitting "to others only when one agrees with them."
As opposed to these, the Romanist claimed that he submits to an "objective" church which is marked by apostolic succession. Such a definition of the church is supposedly "objective" without the subjective looking for the "marks of a true church" which Protestants use. The argument presented to prove his case is as follows:
1. According to solo scriptura, Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. [def]
2. If solo scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [1]
3. According to sola scriptura, Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority. [def]
4. If sola scriptura entails that each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential, then in this respect there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.
5. If apostolic succession is false, then no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s.
6. If no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential.
7. If apostolic succession is false, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(5),(6)]
8. The doctrine of apostolic succession is false. [A]
9. If sola scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(7),(8)]
10. There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. [(4),(9)]
First response
Before we go on further, what are we to make of this argument? First, we note that God and the Holy Spirit is noticeably absent throughout the entire argument. The whole argument is naturalistic to the core.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)
To the new Roman apologists, the decision of choosing a true church and the true Gospel is an autonomous decision. Since it is an autonomous decision, final authority ultimately rests upon the individual. But Protestantism has never claimed that the decision of choosing a true church and the truth Gospel is an autonomous decision. Rather, it is something that is done by the Holy Spirit working within a person. It is not a choice so much as an acknowledgment of what is already there.
We believe that the true church and the true Gospel is extra nos. We do not get to choose it. It is objective and spiritual, and thus spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). The person of the Holy Spirit works within an individual's heart to recognize (not create) the true church and the true Gospel.
Thus, in the Romanist constructed syllogism, premise 4 is wrong. Sola Scriptura does not entail that each individual is his own final interpretive authority. The Holy Spirit is the only final interpretive authority. Yes, on the surface it seems that one person (e.g. Martin Luther) is the final interpretive authority. But that only shows that the Romanists are materialists in this regard. Just because the Spirit's work is invisible does not mean that it is not real. That the blind do not see does not make what those with eyes see wrong.
In the same light, premise 7 is wrong. In fact, it so blatantly contradicts Scripture in Jn. 16:13 that it is not funny. The whole argument for apostolic succession is circular to the extreme. Where in Scripture after all is the notion of apostolic succession taught? A dubious interpretation of Mt. 16:18 does not count!
This brings us to our counter-charge. It is the Romanists who are actually indirectly making themselves the final authority. The only difference is that their leap of faith is supposedly a final leap. Thus, as opposed to those who practice Solo Scriptura, the decision to make Rome the final authority is supposed to stop after they have made the plunge into the Tiber.
The Romanists claim that they submit to the church which objectively has apostolic succession. The problem is that the very notion of a physical apostolic succession is disputed outside Roman (and Eastern Orthodox and Anglican) circles. Therefore, one will only think that apostolic succession is objective only if one is in either of these three groups. Aside from that, upon what basis should anyone accept that apostolic succession actually exists and is unbroken (think of the problems posed by the Avignon Papacy)?
True, Romanism does not practice an individual choosing the church "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority," directly. However, it does involve an individual choosing to accept the claims of apostolic succession through "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority." In other words, the choice to think that there is such a thing as physical apostolic succession is a leap of faith to make, not an objective fact that can be proven.
Solo Scriptura and Romanism therefore are actually two sides of the same coin of rationalism. Both sides (the Anabaptist and the Romanist) refuse to deal with the person and power of the Holy Spirit. The Pietist decides based upon "a burning in the bosom," while the Romanist decides based upon alleged "apostolic succession." The biblical Christian however decides base upon the Spirit working through the Word. To use R. Scott Clark's categories, the Pietist errs with QIRE (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience) while the Romanist errs with QIRC (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty).
The neo-Romanist argument (Part 2)
The Romanists continue by claiming that Sola Scriptura is contradictory. Citing Matthison, they see a contradiction in saying that "all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture" (contra Solo Scriptura) and "Scripture is the final authority." It is then claimed:
But, if all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then it follows necessarily that either someone’s interpretation of Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, or Scripture itself cannot be the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice.
Second response
The problem with this argument is that it flattens the issues and thus present a false dichotomy. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretation in the sense that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted naked text of Scripture. This is mere recognition that there is no such thing as a naked fact or naked text. But this is not to suggest that since there are no uninterpreted texts means that all interpretations of texts are equally valid, which is the postmodern position. Rather, by stating that Scripture is the final authority, we are saying as a synedeche that the Holy Spirit who breathed out the Scriptures is the final authority, and the Holy Spirit works through Scripture (Rom. 10:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Romanists think that putting forth this dichotomy would mean that one should chose for the insufficiency of Scripture. But the same argument can be used against Rome. Look at Rome's decrees and how many different ways they have been interpreted. Does Vatican II implies that people may be saved by earnestly seeking God without professing Christ? Do the many interpretations of Rome's decrees mean that Rome is not the "final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice"? Let's say Rome issued a decree to clarify what she meant, the process is then repeated over and over again.
In the Roman church, it is ironic that one gets to say that other fellow Romanists (espeically liberal RC clergy) are wrong. Why should one think that one's interpretation of Vatican II on salvation of those who haven't heard of Christ is to be preferred over the interpretation of liberal RC bishops? The dichotomy applies even more to Romanists, since it cannot be denied that there are many interpretations of Rome's decrees.
Final remarks
In reply to the tu quoque objection on the nature of authority, the Romanist claims that the difference between Romanism and Protestantism with regards to authority is that Protestants do not find a Magisterium and thus they retain ultimate final authority. That is a truly astonishing claim, because it is false. Reformed Protestants do have a "Magisterium" to bind the conscience. This "Magisterium" is the Holy Spirit. Protestants are not free to believe whatever they want to, which is the problem with Solo Scriptura adherents. And this is what makes Rome such an abomination — the Roman Magisterium usurps the office of the Holy Spirit in binding the consciences of Man.
The next objection of an infinite regress in interpretive authority states that one needs an interpretive authority to interpret another interpretative authority and on it goes. The reply by the Romanists is that such is true for a book but not for a person, since one can put a person in the dock but not a book. First, this does not work as an argument against Sola Scriptura, since the Holy Spirit is a person! Second, this still works against Rome because the Magisterium is made up of fallible human beings, whereas the Holy Spirit is infallible. Putting together a bunch of fallible human beings does not an infallible institution make. The way to solve a leaking bucket is not to put 10 leaking buckets together one inside another and then think that the composite bucket does not leak!
In conclusion, the new Romanist apologetic has been tried and found wanting. It is utterly rationalistic and materialist, making Rome a usurper of the person of the Holy Spirit in binding the conscience with her "infallible" interpretation, instead of the Holy Spirit's infallible interpretation.
I would rather choose the Holy Spirit as my "Magisterium." At least He is infallible always, sinless, loving, and true. These cannot be said of any human magisterium no matter how learned they may be.
It has been in the making, but finally former PCA pastor Jason Stellman has announced his apostasy to Roman Catholicism. Stellman has fought the lure of Rome, and the Devil has won. The Church did not win because Roman Catholicism is a false church with a false Christ and a false gospel. May God be merciful to his lost soul.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:26-29)
[HT: Aomin.org]
Over at the Cripplegate, Jesse Johnson reviews the impact of Rob Bell's heretical book Love Wins, one year on. Johnson makes some interesting points. What I would like to focus on here, however, is his claims on the issue of hell as follows:
If sound and biblical thinkers could be persuaded out of believing in hell, they would abandon the doctrine. Most people who hold to the doctrine do so not because they want to, but they have simply been overwhelmed by the biblical evidence. For me at least, this is how my thoughts go: “I don’t want to believe in hell, and I can’t imagine the horrors of it, and I can’t imagine how and why it would endure forever and ever, but the Bible is so clear that this is the case, and I am bound to believe what the Scripture teaches.”
Johnson's reasoning is true as far as it goes. However, I would like us to consider one very much omitted aspect to the entire doctrine.
Most of the time, discussion on hell hovers around the aspect of God's love and the necessity of the fulfillment of divine justice. But should we not consider another aspect, the wickedness of Man deserving justice?
God's justice is no mere abstract principle. Damnation is God's rightful and just response to wickedness. God is not merely someone who reluctantly just *has* to send people to hell because they have *unfortunately* broken God's law and thus justice must be served. No, Man fully deserve damnation. Wickedness is absolutely abhorrent to God, and wicked men are an abomination to God.
We shudder at the thought of eternal punishment, and to some extent we should. But do we likewise shudder at the wickedness of sin? Do we recognize how abominable wickedness is to God and thus God relishes to get rid of the sinners who are in their sins? Just as those in pain relish to remove the source of their pain, so likewise God relishes to remove sinners in their sins from His presence. Do we recognize how disgusting all mankind is, apart from Christ, to God?
If we cannot grasp this essential aspect of the faith, we will always struggle to make sense of hell. And without it, we do not understand why God seem to be so "cruel," and our foundation for a belief in hell will always be shaky.
