2009-06-09

Hays writes that while open theists view anthropomorphisms as special pleading (at least for their prooftexts), and a particular interpretation may be imposing an extrascriptural view on God, the category of anthropomorphisms is an idiomatic feature of Scripture. Everyone makes allowance for metaphorical usage, or God would be a metamorphic being–by turns humanoid, bestial, or inanimate. Anthropomorphisms are a special type of metaphorical usage – there is both analogy and disanalogy. Open theism arbitrarily demarcates the literal from the anthropomorphic and is guilty of special pleading.  Hays provides some quotes from a class treatment of anthropomorphism. “in a broader sense anthropomorphism is commonly used to cover any attribution of human characteristics to that which is not human…Problems of theological language look very different as soon as we recognize that anthropomorphism is not confined to religion… Whatever may have been the case with their hearers or readers, the biblical writers at least were alert to the possible abuses of such language and at pains to guard against them. God is not like mankind, subject to vacillation and weakness (1 Sam 15:29; Isa 55:8; Hos 11:9; Mal 3:6),” ibid. 175.” Numerous examples and idioms are cited from animate and inanimate nature alike, be it rocks, lions, be it bodily ascriptions to God (who is immaterial), and so on. Such usage helps us move from the known to the unknown and depicts things in vivid terms. Neotheism and anthropomorphism 

Piper reminds people not to forsake their mothers’ teaching – it will be a wreath of grace to your head and a crown of joy upon hers. Even King Solomon bowed when his mother entered the room. Don’t forsake your mother when she is old. Let her rejoice that she gave birth to you. Do Not Forsake Your Mother's Teaching

T-fan points out that in his debate over the veneration of Mary, his interlocutor appealed to the ‘plain sense’ and perspicuity of Scripture on the topic. T-fan cites a Reformed apologist who wrote hundreds of years ago who commented on how the papists would speak in the same, and in so doing they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies. Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 3

Hays posts some of the questions that are pertinent when discussing the NT canon, be it historical, evidentiary (how we sift the evidence and traditions passed down), etc. There is also internal evidence. Now Bart Ehrman paints a picture wherein you’d think that Christians just ended up with a random pile of books, some of which they kept/tossed out. Basically, he’s saying it’s arbitrary and without church authority we’d come up with another set. But this fails to accord with NT history, which canon history parallels (Hays recommends Earle Ellis - The Making of the New Testament Documents; Paul Barnett - Finding the Historical Christ). They point out that both the apostolic and non-apostolic writings fall into four groups, corresponding to the missionary teams of the church, divisible by these leaders: Peter, Paul, James, and John. Each team has a Gospel, and correspondence in its literary repertoire. The books form four blocks of interrelated material. How we got the New Testament

Hays points out that Catholic epologist confuse proving the abstract idea of apostolic succession with the reality of succession, which posits a series of interlocking events, and a chain only as strong as its weakest link. Leo XIII denies the apostolic succession of the Anglican church on the grounds that succession is contingent on valid ordination, which is a historical question subject to detailed historic verification. Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and by the standard of Pope Leo XIII, the Anglican church must prove every step, and so too must the Roman church. Hays then produces Leo’s Encyclical on the matter. Verifying apostolic succession

Hays compares the rationale of two Roman Catholic doctrines, the immaculate conception of Mary and virginitas in partu (perpetual virginity), pointing out that the Thomistic reasoning is ad hoc. Does childbearing dishonour the mother? Doesn’t this antedate the fall? Aquinas seems to say that ordinary childbirth would defile both Christ and his mother. How could the sinless Christ in passing through the birth canal of His sinless mother defile either of them? [and virginity is necessary for Christ’s sinlessness, but not for Mary’s??] “The only plausible explanation I can proffer for these inconsistent positions is that each dogma represents a legendary embellishment which evolved independently of the other, without thought for the other. And that’s why they don’t go together.” Virginitas in partu

DeYoung provides a quote from his co-author on Why We Love the Church, (Ted Kluck), who writes that he’s pretty much sick of revolutionaries. “Being a revolutionary used to mean that you overthrew a government; now it means that you’re a courageous enough visionary to have church on a golf course or in someone’s living room.” He aims to encourage the non-revolutionaries, those “of us who aren’t ready to chuck centuries worth of church history, and years of unglamorous but God-glorifying growth in the name of revolution.” We’re a culture of wanderers, producing more memoirs before 35 than any other. And many such books, in recounting self-finding journeys, etc., encourage community as the answer, but are fundamentally individualistic. Perhaps I'm Just Sick of Revolutionaries

Here’s an excerpt from freedom of the will, by Jonathan Edwards. Excerpt From The Freedom of the Will by Edwards