Scripture Reliability Lectures Referenced on the Dividing Line

Turretinfan has posted a quote from Dr James White reminding listeners to his webcast today regarding a conference from last year on  reliability of scripture. This is real important. It is about how we can be sure we can trust scripture.

This morning I listened, for the 2nd time, to a 3 1/2 hour seminar recorded in Scotland, I believe, in Edinburgh. The presenters (the audio file did a horrible job and explaining who was who) were Peter J. Williams, Dirk Jongkind, and Simon Gathercole. I just found a link, thankfully, here. I would highly recommend this series for everyone. The presentations are lively, well done, and very understandable. I have benefited from them greatly. In particular, Peter J. Williams' presentation was very useful.Here is a video of a similar presentation Dr. Williams gave. I likewise truly enjoyed Dirk Jongkind's dismantling of a particularly troubling section of Ehrman's work. I would love to hear Bart's response in a one-on-one discussion.

Here is the video from Dr Peter J Williams that is referenced above.



Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.

Scripture Reliability Lectures Referenced on the Dividing Line

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Good Evidence for Historical Reliability for 2 Peter as written by Peter Himself

Over at Beggars All blog, Ken has posted a very interesting article that will be very helpful to me and a lot of people. You may know that I've had sharp disagreement with Ryan Anderson regarding whether or not 2 Peter was really written by the Apostle Peter. Anderson uses the idea that because a consensus of scholars don't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter, Peter did not write it. He accepts their arguments and therefore it's proof to him that the Bible is not inspired and not true. He went as far as calling 1st and 2nd Peter lies because the letters say they were written by Peter but he didn't write them. Of course I disagree. Ken has summarized a lot of good evidence and comments from scholars, like Dan Wallace and James White, who disagree with the "consensus" and affirm that these letter were written by the Apostle himself.

Dr. James White has a little article with an excellent graphic of an ancient manuscript of P-72
which has both I and 2 Peter (and Jude) in it. One of the pages of this manuscript shows the end of 1 Peter and the beginning of 2nd Peter and this manuscript called P-72 is dated at around 200 AD. That is very good early dating for a copy of one of the most attacked books of the NT by skeptics, atheists, and Muslims and others, sometimes by good scholars. (the Muslims like to use Bruce Metzger as authoritative evidence that 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter. But many other conservative scholars and all Christians who believe in inerrancy believe that 2 Peter is "God-breathed" and was written by Peter. ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

So what about scholars like Bruce Metzger and Ben Witherington III? Are they wrong to conclude that Peter did not write 2 Peter? I'm not sure. Does that mean that they are going to hell ("went" in Metzger's case given that he died) because they did not think that Peter wrote all of  2 Peter? Nope. What one believes about authorship is not a litmus test for orthodoxy. What is important is what you believe about Jesus - is He Lord of your life or not? Do you accepts his propitiatory sacrifice on your behalf and live submitted to Him? That is how you know you are born-again.

I highly recommend this article and hope that anyone who has doubts that Peter wrote 2 Peter or that the Bible is in anyway reliable will read this article along with their own research for the truth.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Good Evidence for Historical Reliability for 2 Peter as written by Peter Himself

Iron Sharpens Iron: TurretinFan: Formal Sufficiency of scripture: Stated & Examined From scripture & the Fathers, with Scholarly Confirmation Regarding the Fathers' Views (Encore)

I love to hear TurretinFan talk about church history. He was recently on Iron Sharpens Iron where he was interviewed on the Church Fathers.

Iron Sharpens Iron: TurretinFan: Formal Sufficiency of scripture: Stated & Examined From scripture & the Fathers, with Scholarly Confirmation Regarding the Fathers' Views (Encore)

Related articles

• Back To The Scriptures (injesus.wordpress.com)
• Varieties of "Two Kingdoms" Positions (via TurretinFan's Blog) (justificationbygrace.com)
• Taking On Dr. Richard Burnett (A Defense of Turretin and the Formula Consensus Helvetica) (reformedrebel.wordpress.com)
• Christian Doctrine and Dogma: Where does it come from? (fathertimothy.wordpress.com)
• book review: pillars of grace (jude3project.org)

Molinism in a Nutshell: God Makes Do the Best He Can

Turretinfan did a great job discussing Molinism. He explained why he rejects it as a viable understanding of how to reconcile God's Sovereignty with Human responsibility and free will. Added to the recent post from Jamin Hubner on Molinism, I think it's very evident how you can't substantiate Molinism from scripture. Turrentinfan wrote:

As you can see, ultimately it comes down to a question of whether a will - in order to be free - must have an ability that it never, ever uses - the ability to do the contrary. This rationale seems to be what drives the engine of Molinism, and while many people accept this rationale, you'll never find it in Scripture.

Agreed.

Molinism in a Nutshell: God Makes Do the Best He Can

Available Debates By Dr. James White

TurretinFan has posted a list of important Debates from Dr. James White - complete with links!

Many of you may know that Dr. James White has done a lot of debates. Many of those debates are available through the Alpha and Omega Ministry's on-line store. I've attempted to provide links to as many of those debates as possible, below. I should note that Dr. White has conducted many other debates as well, as can be seen from his bio page (link to page). And, of course, I should note that not all of the "debates" in this list are formal debates - some are radio debates or discussions, and I have tried to indicate that in the list.

Available Debates By Dr. James White

Rejecting the Truth with Clement XI

TurretinFan posted the following the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog. It's really important and shows why the founders of the Reformation opposed the Roman Catholic Church with such ferocity. It's shocking to me that such ideas so fundamental to Biblical Christianity were ever denied by a Pope. I think the truth is that many Roman Catholics today are not aware of this list. I know I didn't know about it. I don't think that even most Catholics would agree that these things are wrong. I don't think I can paint all Roman Catholics with such a broad brush. I do think that there are some Roman Catholics who do think Clement XI was right but he wasn' and some of today's Roman Catholics realize. This certainly kills the rhetoric that the Roman Catholic church has always been consistent in teachang, doctrine, and practice.

Some of Rome's rejections of Scriptural truth are more clear than others. One particularly clear set of examples comes from the dogmatic Constitution, "Unigenitus,"dated Sept. 8, 1713, and authorized by Clement XI. I've previously posted a full list of the 101 "errors" condemned (link to full list).

There many alleged errors identified. I've taken the liberty to highlight a few of them. Remember, these are what the Roman church has officially proclaimed to be errors.

Scripture

• 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
• 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
• 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
• 82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
• 83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures, and have heresies been born.
• 84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
• 85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.

The Power of God in Salvation

• 30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ, are infallibly saved.
• 31. The desires of Christ always have their effect; He brings peace to the depth of hearts when He desires it for them.

Particular Redemption

• 32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the elect.

Justification by Faith that Works through Love

• 51. Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity.

Faith as the Gift of God

• 69. Faith, practice of it, increase, and reward of faith, all are a gift of the pure liberality of God.

The Church

• 72. A mark of the Christian Church is that it is catholic, embracing all the angels of heaven, all the elect and the just on earth, and of all times.
• 73. What is the Church except an assembly of the sons of God abiding in His bosom, adopted in Christ, subsisting in His person, redeemed by His blood, living in His spirit, acting through His grace, and awaiting the grace of the future life?
• 74. The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head, but all the saints as members.
• 75. The Church is one single man composed of many members, of which Christ is the head, the life, the subsistence and the person; it is one single Christ composed of many saints, of whom He is the sanctifier.

Total Depravity

• 38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil.
• 39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good.
• 40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemnation.
• 41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.
• 42. The grace of Christ alone renders a man fit for the sacrifice of faith; without this there is nothing but impurity, nothing but unworthiness.
• 48. What else can we be except darkness, except aberration, and except sin, without the light of faith, without Christ, and without charity?

The Absolute Necessity of Grace

• 1. What else remains for the soul that has lost God and His grace except sin and the consequences of sin, a proud poverty and a slothful indigence, that is, a general impotence for labor, for prayer, and for every good work?
• 2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is nothing done, but nothing can be done.
• 5. When God does not soften a heart by the interior unction of His grace, exterior exhortations and graces are of no service except to harden it the more.
• 9. The grace of Christ is a supreme grace, without which we can never confess Christ, and with which we never deny Him.

The Irresistibility of Grace

• 10. Grace is the working of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard.
• 11. Grace is nothing else than the omnipotent Will of God, ordering and doing what He orders.
• 12. When God wishes to save a soul, at whatever time and at whatever place, the undoubted effect follows the Will of God.
• 13. When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him.
• 14. Howsoever remote from salvation an obstinate sinner is, when Jesus presents Himself to be seen by him in the salutary light of His grace, the sinner is forced to surrender himself, to have recourse to Him, and to humble himself, and to adore his Savior.
• 15. When God accompanies His commandment and His eternal exhortation by the unction of His Spirit and by the interior force of His grace, He works that obedience in the heart that He is seeking.
• 16. There are no attractions which do not yield to the attractions of grace, because nothing resists the Almighty.
• 17. Grace is that voice of the Father which teaches men interiorly and makes them come to Jesus Christ; whoever does not come to Him, after he has heard the exterior voice of the Son, is in no wise taught by the Father.

Unjust Excommunication

• 91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
• 92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.

Yes, folks, those are things that Rome has officially taught are errors - yet many of these teachings are the truth, as I think will be obvious to most of those reading.

Rejecting the Truth with Clement XI

Reformation History on the Dividing Line

Today on the Dividing Line, James White was joined by TurretinFan to discuss the history of the Reformation! Very apt indeed given that October 31 is Reformation Sunday in which people celebrate the Reformation. It was a great program.

Reformation History on the Dividing Line

Iron Sharpens Iron: TurretinFan: PART 2: The Debate on the Immaculate Conception & Sinlessness of Mary: One Protestant's Analysis

Unfortunately I can't find part 1 of this interview but I will be watching the debate on which the interview is based. The interview with TurretinFan is well worth listening to.

"TurretinFan" (a pseudonym used in order to separate his secular career from his apologetics ministry), a contributor to Dr. James R. White's blog on the Alpha & Omega Ministries web site (http://www.aomin.org/), returns to our program to address: "PART 2: The Debate on the Immaculate Conception & Sinlessness of Mary: One Protestant's Analysis".
On Saturday, August 28th, Christopher A. Ferrara, an attorney, widely published Catholic author and commentator, and founder, president and chief counsel of American Catholic Lawyer’s Association , participated in a live, public, moderated debate (over 3 hours in length) with Reformed Evangelical Christian apologist Dr. James R. White, co-founder & director of Alpha & Omega Ministries , on the theme: "The Immaculate Conception & Sinlessness of Mary".

Iron Sharpens Iron: TurretinFan: PART 2: The Debate on the Immaculate Conception & Sinlessness of Mary: One Protestant's Analysis

Sola Scriptura and Unity Debate

This was a great debate. TurretinFan and William Albrecht debate the idea that Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) has caused division in the church. TurretinFan said "No" and Albrecht says "Yes".

I think that TurretinFan did an awesome job and I don't agree with Albrecht that all differences between Protestant denominations are due to difference in Biblical interpretation. Albrecht did not answer the point regarding the differences in Roman Catholicism and why there are differences. It's not because of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura and Unity Debate

Brennon's Thoughts: See, I Can Change My Mind; or Accepting Molinism

My brother-in-Christ, Brennon, recently posted an article on his blog about why he is now accepting Molinism. I still have a great deal of problems with this attempt at reconciling Human Free Will with God's Sovereign Will and decrees. Brennon wrote:

So, with this in mind, it is easy to see how God could very easily providentially guide creation to His ends and still deal with free creatures. Take, for instance, the crucifixion. Peter says in Acts that Jesus was "delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death" (Acts 2:23). Well we know that God Himself didn't cause the pharisees to be godless. Rather, God knew what kind of godless men the pharisees would be, and He knew that if they were put in the position they were in, they would act to murder Jesus. Thereby, God was able to decree that Christ would be crucified to accomplish His justice, and was able to use the freely chosen sinful actions of evil men to accomplish this.

My problem with example is the full credit is given to God for Jesus' sacrifice - including the suffering not just the glorious ending.

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. - Isaiah 53:10

Another important verse is regarding Judas. Jesus knew Judas was a goner when Jesus selected him.

¹²While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. - John 17:12

Given these facts and others. I am unable to understand how we can infer that God decrees outcomes without also having a hand in ordaining means. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that God forces or tempts anyone to do evil. God does allow people to do evil things and uses the outcome to get good out of it. Jesus' crucifixion is indeed of an example that God does take the evil that men desire to do and turns it to ultimate good. However there are times when God does stop people from sinning. This is where Middle Knowledge (Molinism) falls apart. God tells us that at times what man means for evil, God means for good.

¹⁵ When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" ¹⁶ So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: ¹⁷ 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept.
 ¹⁸ His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.
 ¹⁹ But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? ²⁰ You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ²¹ So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:15-21

Joseph recognized that his brothers were not looking out for his best interest but intended for Joseph to suffer but God intended Joseph's suffering to ultimately save lives and to fulfill the promises made to His great-grandfather Abraham. Does this get Joseph's brothers off the hook for their sin. No. But Jesus does.

These are a few reasons why I think Molinism fails to explain Human will and God's sovereignty. I realize that Dr. William Lane Craig believes that Molinisim is a great tool understand the Bible and Philosophy but I don't think he is right in this although I admire the man for many other reasons. I've been writing several posts on this subject based on the work of William Lane Craig, James White,  and TurretinFan. The posts are regarding  Middle Knowlege (Molinism), Free Will, and God's Sovereignty.  Feel free to check out the past articles. And check out the additional link from James White: Craig vs. Hitchens at Biola Reviewed on the Dividing Line (Update!) This is a link to one of Dr. White's webcasts in which he discusses William Lane Craig's debate against Christopher Hitchen and Dr. Craig describes Calvinism as a "false Christian denomination." And I'm including it here because it points to why Dr. Craig may feel Molinism is a better explanation.

Brennon's Thoughts: See, I Can Change My Mind; or Accepting Molinism

Asking the Wrong Marian Questions ...

 TurretinFan posted a great article discussing if there are really is an exaltation of Jesus' mother Mary to rival God. I think he explains very well how this is done and that we should not do it!

Asking the Wrong Marian Questions ...

Related articles by Zemanta

• Benedict brings 'Marian Cool' to fevered Fatima devotion (ncronline.org)

The Unchanging God

TurretinFan has written a great article about God's character that we call immutability. He points out the scriptures that point out this important point! God neither lacks anything and does not need anything.

The Unchanging God

The Water-Calming God

TurretinFan has a great article showing how the fact that Jesus could command raging storms illustrates his divinity. It's a great, well-written argument. Check it out!

The Water-Calming God

LouRugg vs TurretinFan Debate Regarding Calvinism

I have heard that there is a debate between an apologist I have been admiring, who calls himself TurretinFan, and Lou Rugg who fancies himself the defender of Arminianism. On the Dividing Line, James White played a portion of the debate. Here is the debate in its entirety

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Here is a link to that particular Dividing Line and it contained several other interesting things like an Atheist who attempts to save Dan Barkers' Justin Martyr's argument; and a call in which I was confused as to what the caller was arguing concerning the Harold Camping debate. Apparently, the caller thinks that the church age is over but because most of it thinks that its Arminian dictrine.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3538

Here is a post TurretinFan made listing quotes from throughout history that shows that many folks believed that God actively hardened Pharoah's heart so that he would not let Israel go so that events would play out as they did.

Baking Clay Pots - Subtracting Water or Adding Hardness?

Shared via AddThis

Thoughts on the Barker/White Mythology Debate

TurretinFan has posted his thoughts on the Dan Barker debate with James White. Reading his short report makes me excited to see the whole video. You can read his notes on the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog. I liked the first debate between James White vs Dan Barker but this one is not about God's existence but about if Christianity is borrowed or stolen from ancient mythologies. I can't wait to see how Barker looses this one as he lost the last one.

Iron Sharpens Iron: TurretinFan: Harold Camping's Achilles Heel: Why Family Radio's Date for the End of the World is Wrong

I heard the original James White vs Harold Camping debate on Iron Sharpen Iron and I think that TurretinFan made some great comments worthy of serious contemplation. It does seriously show that Harold Camping's teaching can't be trusted!

I think TurrentinFan's point that Camping has to ignore 4 Bible verses the says that Aram was Moses' father in order to get his chronology and calculations to work to come up with Jesus' return being 2011. Doesn't work.

Iron Sharpens Iron: TurretinFan: Harold Camping's Achilles Heel: Why Family Radio's Date for the End of the World is Wrong

Here is TurretinFan's blog entry on the AOMIN blog

Mormonism 101

TurretinFan, one of the contributors to the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog has compiled previous resources regarding mormonism by Dr. James White. You can find it at the following link: Mormonism 101 - Index Page.

Some Early Christian Quotes About The Atonement

TurrentinFan has posted a great post quoting early Christians concerning what they believe about the atonement. I thought that I could comment on each quote in red. Thank you, TurrentinFan!

The following is a list of several patristic quotations (previously posted at the link) that relate to the topic of the atonement. Some affirm limited atonement, some are simply germane to the topic of the atonement without necessarily affirming limited atonement. The last two show that interpreting 1 John 2:1-2 the way that Calvin did was not new to Calvin.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, and it is not intended to be a representative list. There are a lot of odd statements by the church fathers on the atonement, and a lot of strange theories that some of them adopted. Also, just because they adopted a view of limited atonement (in the sense of understanding that Christ was offered to bear the sins of the elect or in that he redeemed the elect in particular) does not mean that they held to a thoroughly "Calvinist" (what an anachronism to call it that!) understanding of TULIP. This, therefore, provides some patristic views of the atonement.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §25, p. 201.
Latin Text: Et si Christus pro omnibus passus est, pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est; quia pro Ecclesia passus est. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 6.25, PL 15:1675.

Ambrose does not seem to be trying to say anymore than 1st John 2:2. He does not explain what does "suffered for all" mean to him.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. “If I had not come,” saith the Scripture, “and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.” Who, then, hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonor? — for as it is love’s part to render, so it is hate’s to withdraw honor. He who hates, calls in question; he who loves, pays reverence. NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book IV, Chapter 2, §27.

Ambrose seems to be saying to me that Jesus' sacrifice was only for the church - those who love Christ.

Ambrosiaster: The people of God hath its own fulness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men. See Works of John Owen, Vol. 10, p. 423.
Latin text: Habet ergo populus Dei plenitudinem suam, et quamvis magna pars hominum, salvantis gratiam aut repellat aut negligat, in electis tamen et praescitis, atque ab omnium generalitate discretis, specialis quaedam censetur universitas, ut de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus, et de omnibus hominibus omnes homines videantur assumpti: De Vocatione Gentium, Liber Primus, Caput III, PL 17:1084.

Ambrosiaster Seems to be saying the same thing as the doctrine of Limited Atonement: That Jesus only suffered and died for the elect - the true church - not all of humantiy


Jerome (347-420) on Matthew 20:28: He does not say that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would believe. See Turretin, Vol. 2, p. 462.
Latin text: Non dixit animam suam redemptionem dare pro omnibus, sed pro multis, id est, pro his qui credere voluerint. Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Liber Tertius, PL 26:144-145.

Jerome is pretty clear about what he thinks.

Hilary of Arles (c. 401-449) commenting on 1 John 2:2: When John says that Christ died for the sins of the “whole world,” what he means is that he died for the whole church. Introductory Commentary on 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177.
Latin text: et non pro nostris tantum. set etiam pro totius mundi peccatis; Aecclesiam mundi nomine appellat. Expositio In Epistolas Catholiicas, Incipit Epistola Sancti Iohannis Apostoli, Cap. II, v. 2, PL Supp. 3:118.

I'm not sure what Hilary means by that. Seems like he's reading a lot into the text.

Augustine (354-430): 2. But alongside of this love we ought also patiently to endure the hatred of the world. For it must of necessity hate those whom it perceives recoiling from that which is loved by itself. But the Lord supplies us with special consolation from His own case, when, after saying, “These things I command you, that ye love one another,” He added, “If the world hate you, know that it hated me before [it hated] you.” Why then should the member exalt itself above the head? Thou refusest to be in the body if thou art unwilling to endure the hatred of the world along with the Head. “If ye were of the world,” He says, “the world would love its own.” He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” And this also: “The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” And John says in his epistle: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also [for those] of the whole world.” The whole world then is the Church, and yet the whole world hateth the Church. The world therefore hateth the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed.
3. But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate LXXXVII, §2-3, John 15:17-19.

Augustine (354-430): Hence things that are lawful are not all good, but everything unlawful is not good. Just as everyone redeemed by Christ's blood is a human being, but human beings are not all redeemed by Christ's blood, so too everything that is unlawful is not good, but things that are not good are not all unlawful. As we learn from the testimony of the apostle, there are some things that are lawful but are not good. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Adulterous Marriages, Part 1, Vol. 9, trans. Ray Kearney, O.P., Book One, 15, 16 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 153.

Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. “So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17.

Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463): He is not crucified with Christ who is not a member of the body of Christ. When, therefore, our Saviour is said to be crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because of his true assumption of the human nature, yet may he be said to be crucified only for them unto whom his death was profitable. . . . Diverse from these is their lot who are reckoned amongst them of whom is is said, ‘the world knew him not.’
Latin text: Non est autem crucifixus in Christo, qui non est membrum corporis Christi, nec est membrum corporis Christi, qui non per aquam et Spiritum sanctum induit Christum. Qui ideo in infirmitate nostra communionem subiit mortis, ut nos in virtute ejus haberemus consortium resurrectionis. Cum itaque rectissime dicatur Salvator pro totius mundi redemptione crucifixus, propter veram humanae naturae susceptionem, et propter communem in primo homine omnium perditionem: potest tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus quibus mors ipsius profuit. . . . Diversa ergo ab istis sors eorum est qui inter illos censentur de quibus dicitur; Mundus eum non cognovit. Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum, Capitulum IX, Responsio, PL 51:165.

Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463): Doubtless the propriety of redemption is theirs from whom the prince of this world is cast out. The death of Christ is not to be so laid out for human-kind, that they also should belong unto his redemption who were not to be regenerated.
Latin text: Redemptionis proprietas haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus princeps mundi missus est foras, et jam non vasa diaboli, sed membra sunt Christi. Cujus mors non ita impensa est humano generi, ut ad redemptionem ejus etiam qui regenerandi non erant pertinerint. Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum, Capitulum Primum, Responsio, PL 51:178.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death’s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, “He committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:1: The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for. On 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177.
Latin text: Interpellat ergo pro nobis Dominus, non voce, sed miseratione, quia quod damnare in electis noluit, suscipiendo servavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:89.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:2: In his humanity Christ pleads for our sins before the Father, but in his divinity he has propitiated them for us with the Father. Furthermore, he has not done this only for those who were alive at the time of his death, but also for the whole church which is scattered over the full compass of the world, and it will be valid for everyone, from the very first among the elect until the last one who will be born at the end of time. This verse is therefore a rebuke to the Donatists, who thought that the true church was to be found only in Africa. The Lord pleads for the sins of the whole world, because the church which he has bought with his blood exists in every corner of the globe. On 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 178.
Latin text: Qui per humanitatem interpellat pro nobis apud Patrem, idem per divinitatem propitiatur nobis cum Patre. . . . Non pro illis solum propitiatio est Dominus, quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia quae per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta. Quibus verbis Donatistarum schisma reprobat, qui in Africae solum finibus Ecclesiam Christi esse dicebant inclusam. Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:90.

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

I think the key to understanding what scripture teaches about the Atonement is to really look and see what scripture has to say about the Atonement. What it's scope really is. I desire to study it in detail and post my methodology and conclusions.

TurretinFan Shuts down An Atheist in 60 Seconds!

You may have noticed that there are debates that occur on YouTube. Someone posts a video expressing a viewpoint for the world to see and others write comments or post a video of their own. This is one such duel. First an atheist gives his viewpoint:





And Here is TurretinFan's rebuttal

Answering Monica Dennington

TurretinFan has done an excellent job refuting a person who has no idea what theologians do or what Calvinism is. He is referring to the video that I mentioned in an earlier post: Reasoning with William Lane Craig