Source: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010_02_07_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:18:32+00:00

Document:
Edward Reiss has a post titled "Calvin's Framing of the Question about the Incarnation ... is Flawed."
1) An allegation that we can't properly ascribe things to a nature that we ordinarily ascribe to a person.
There's not much support for this allegation. Christians have been distinguishing between person and nature for centuries and attributing certain things to Christ's human nature as distinct from his divine nature. The distinction between the natures is an important part of orthodoxy.
For those of us who recognize that this discussion relates to Jesus with respect to his human nature, there is no problem. For those who blend the two natures, or who refuse to acknowledge the distinction (attributing everything that Jesus does to both natures), there proceeds an absurd result of the only wise God (Romans 16:27, 1 Timothy 1:17, and Jude 25) increasing in wisdom and stature.
2) An allegation that Jesus body (at least post-resurrection) was a deified glorified body.
This again appears to be an attempt to confuse and mix the natures. The proofs that Edward sets forth are miracles that Jesus did. Those miracles, however, are more easily explained as manifestations of Jesus' ability to do miracles, not a quasi-human body.
Specifically Edward points again (he had done so before) to Jesus' miracles of: disappearing, going through doors, walking on water, glowing etc.
However, note that Simon Peter also walked on water, Moses face also glowed and his body disappeared. Indeed the door of Lot's house effectively disappeared without becoming an inportation of God. The angels who assisted Peter walked him through locked doors to escape execution. And we could go on.
Yes, miracles sometimes involve men doing things that they could not normally do. That testifies to the power of God. It does not suggest that Simon Peter or Moses was an incarnation of God, or that the door of Lot's house was God-in-the-door.
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 35/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
35) Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church's leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?
1) The second coming of Christ is the expiration date on this verse.
1) Leaving a church is something that should not be undertaken lightly.
2) Although Rome's anti-christian attempts to usurp authority over Christ's church are extreme, there is real authority given to the elders of Christ's church, and they ought to be given qualified obedience.
Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
But even the most zealous advocates for Romanism recognize that the obedience in these categories is to be a qualified obedience. The same goes for obedience to religious leaders as demonstrated by Peter's (and the other apostles') response to the Sanhedrin.
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 34/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
34) If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
The premise of the question is mistaken. Denominational unity was not intended to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God.
1) See the answer to question 33, as well as my previous discussion of John 17 (link to John 17 discussion).
2) What ought to be remarkable to Rome's apologists is the continuity of brotherly love among the "ever-increasing fragmentation" in "Protestantism." Extremely few of those fragments (Westboro Baptists, for example) make the claim to be the one true church. The rest accept believers in other denominations as their brethren even despite the denominational disunity.
This verse fits marvelously well with the Calvinistic teaching that everything that man does, even the wrath of men, glorifies God. My question is, how could an Arminian agree with this verse? How does man's wrath praise God in an Arminian worldview? I would think the best that could be said for the Arminian viewpoint is that God (according to them) manages to make the best of man's wrath.
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 33/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
33) Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?
The world sees the invisible unity through the visible manifestations of invisible love that believers have for one another.
2) Believers are directly taught by God to love one another.
3) I've previously demonstrated that Rome's apologists appeal wrongly to John 17 here: (link).
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 32/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
32) If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
The question equivocates between the Bible's role as our source and standard of truth and the church's role as defender and promoter of truth. The two are different, even if they can be expressed using the same words (in different senses).
1) The Bible is not the only source of truth for Christians. We accept both General Revelation (also called the "light of nature") and Special Revelation (of which Scripture is the foremost example, but which also encompasses the prophecies of all true prophets).
2) The church's purpose is to be a supporter and defender of the truth. That is its purpose and it's role. It does not always perform that role well.
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Notice that Paul says that the reason he is writing is to provide information to Timothy that Timothy would not have if Paul were to tarry (i.e. delay coming), even though Timothy is "in the house of God" even while Paul is writing to him. In other words the Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth" is unable to supply Timothy with the instruction that Paul is providing, and consequently Paul has written to Timothy. In short, Scripture is needed because "the church" is not enough for Timothy. So, appeal to this verse backfires on the advocate of Romanism.
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 31/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
31) The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?
One doesn't need a "defined" canon to read the Bible.
1) Obviously, one needs some idea of which books are the Bible, and the early church did have an understanding of that, from the very days that the Scriptures were being penned. For example, Peter referred to Paul's epistles as "Scripture" long before any council convened to "define" the canon (and even before the canon of the New Testament was closed).
2) The definitions of the canon in the late 300's were not "binding" on all Christians. Nevertheless, the Christians of that time remarkably were mostly in agreement as to which books were inspired and which were not.
3) Early Christians used what they had. Some failed to recognize that one or more of the inspired books was inspired, but they used the books that they knew were inspired. Other Christians erroneously thought that other writings were inspired, and mistakenly relied upon them. Nevertheless, like the Bereans they searched the Scripture and established their doctrines from that source.
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 30/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
30) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
Because men are fallible and sinful.
Notice in particular that 1512 is about five years before October 31, 1517, the famous date on which Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of Wittenburg Chapel. In other words, this is not a quotation from Luther at the very end of his life, but from Luther before he had even come to oppose publicly the sale of indulgences by the mechanism of the 95 theses.
2) On many important things, like sola fide and sola scriptura, Luther was not the first one to interpret Scripture as he did.
3) The Reformed doctrine of perspicuity (see some standard definitions here) does not claim that Scripture is so clear that everyone who looks at it comes to the same conclusion with respect to every doctrine.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
- Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book XI, §7.
The Lord has not left in doubt or obscurity the teaching conveyed in this great mystery; He has not abandoned us to lose our way in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as He reveals the full knowledge of this faith to His Apostles; — I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me. If ye know Me, ye know My Father also; and from henceforth ye shall know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Dost thou not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake. He Who is the Way leads us not into by-paths or trackless wastes: He Who is the Truth mocks us not with lies; He Who is the Life betrays us not into delusions which are death. He Himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods which He has appointed for our salvation. As the Way, He will guide us to the Truth; the Truth will establish us in the Life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what is the mysterious mode, which He reveals, of attaining this life. No man cometh to the Father but through Me. The way to the Father is through the Son. And now we must enquire whether this is to be by a course of obedience to His teaching, or by faith in His Godhead. For it is conceivable that our way to the Father may be through adherence to the Son’s teaching, rather than through believing that the Godhead of the Father dwells in the Son. And therefore let us, in the next place, seek out the true meaning of the instruction given us here. For it is not by cleaving to a preconceived opinion, but by studying the force of the words, that we shall enter into possession of this faith.
- Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book VII, §33.
- Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book VIII, §43.
- Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §40.
But this passage concerning the unity, of which we are speaking, does not allow us to look for the meaning outside the plain sound of the words. If Father and Son are one, in the sense that They are one in will, and if separable natures cannot be one in will, because their diversity of kind and nature must draw them into diversities of will and judgment, how call They be one in will. not being one in knowledge? There can be no unity of will between ignorance and knowledge. Omniscience and nescience are opposites, and opposites cannot be of the same will.
- Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §70.
The perspicuity of Scripture, however, does not mean that everything in Scripture is clear. The necessary things for salvation are clear in Scripture, but there is much additional in Scripture for which our attention and study is both necessary and commended.
- Paschasius of Dumium, FC, Vol. 62, Paschasius of Dumium, Questions and Answers of the Greek Fathers, Chapter 6, §2 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1969), p. 127.
- Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 1, §3.
Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power.
- Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 5, §18. See also FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 137. Addressed to Volusian (412 AD) (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 34.
- Chrysostom, NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 9.
Eran. — We have gone through many and sound arguments, but I was anxious to know the force of the Gospel saying.
- Theodoret of Cyrrhus, NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue I.—The Immutable.Orthodoxos and Eranistes.
The worldly man cannot receive the faith of the Apostle, nor can any language but that of the Apostle explain his meaning. God raised Christ from the dead; Christ in Whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. But He quickened us also together with Him, forgiving us our sins, blotting out the bond of the law of sin, which through the ordinances made aforetime was against us, taking it out of the way, and fixing it to His cross, stripping Himself of His flesh by the law of death, holding up the powers to shew, and triumphing over them in Himself.
- Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §10.
Mark how he disapproves of questioning. For where faith exists, there is no need of question. Where there is no room for curiosity, questions are superfluous. Questioning is the subversion of faith. For he that seeks has not yet found. He who questions cannot believe. Therefore it is his advice that we should not be occupied with questions, since if we question, it is not faith; for faith sets reasoning at rest. But why then does Christ say, “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you” (Matt. vii. 7); and, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life”? (John v. 39.) The seeking there is meant of prayer and vehement desire, and He bids “search the Scriptures,” not to introduce the labors of questioning, but to end them, that we may ascertain and settle their true meaning, not that we may be ever questioning, but that we may have done with it.
- Chrysostom, NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Homily 1.
You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn’t let the listener go astray. . . . So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture.
- Chrysostom, FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.
- Chrysostom, Duane A. Garrett, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation, Isaiah Chapter 5 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 110-111.
- Chrysostom, Duane A. Garrett, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation, Isaiah Chapter 8 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 161.
And the obscure portions have a reason in themselves, not to hide an important doctrine, but to stimulate our spiritual appetite, increase our humility, or give us spiritual exercise and excitement.
Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere.
- Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 6, §8.
Here by that rule I would wish to take “the sons of men” of those that from old men have been regenerated by faith. For these, by certain obscure passages of Scripture, as it were the closed eyes of God, are exercised that they may seek: and again, by certain clear passages, as it were the open eyes of God, are enlightened that they may rejoice. And this frequent closing and opening in the holy Books are as it were the eyelids of God; which question, that is, which try the “sons of men;” who are neither wearied with the obscurity of the matter, but exercised; nor puffed up by knowledge, but confirmed.
- Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 11, §8.
The depths of meaning in the word of God are there to excite our eagerness to study, not to prevent us from understanding. If everything was locked up in riddles, there would be no clue to the opening up of obscure passages.
- Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 5, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons, Sermon 156.1 (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1992), p. 96.
Our thoughts, my dearest brothers and sisters, in reflecting on and discussing the holy scriptures must be guided by the indisputable authority of the same scriptures, so that we may deal faithfully both with what is said clearly for the purpose of giving us spiritual nourishment, and what is said obscurely in order to give us spiritual exercise. Who, after all, would dare to expound the divine mysteries otherwise than has been practiced and prescribed by the mind and mouth of an apostle?
- Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons, Sermon 363.1 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 270. (414 AD.).
Thus, Scripture can teach us all that is worth knowing.
Love to read the sacred Letters, and you will not find many things to ask of me. By reading and meditating, if you pray wholeheartedly to God, the Giver of all good things, you will learn all that is worth knowing, or at least you will learn more under His inspiration than through the instruction of any man.
- Augustine, FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 140. Addressed to Honoratus (412 AD), Chapter 37 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), pp. 135-136. Honoratus was a catechumen.
When the Gospel was read, we heard that word which is at the same time both terrible and desirable, the sentence of our Lord which is equally dreadful and desirable. It is terrible because of what He says: ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire’; it is desirable because of the words: ‘Come, blessed, receive the kingdom.’ . . . For if a man carefully heeds this lesson, even if he cannot read the rest of the Scriptures, this lesson alone can suffice for him to perform every good act and to avoid all evil.
- Caesarius of Arles, FC, Vol. 47, Saint Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 187-238, Sermon 158.1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1963), p. 359.
- Ambrose, FC, Vol. 42, Saint Ambrose: Cain and Abel, Book 2, chapter 6, §20 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961), p. 421.
Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 29/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
29) If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
Believing in "the Holy Catholic Church" does not mean what many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox try to suggest that it means (a more complete explanation here). Very briefly it means believing that there is one, not putting one's faith in men.

References: §7
 §33
 §43
 §40
 §70
 §2
 §3
 §18
 §10
 v. 
 §8
 §8
 §20