This post by John Walton/Daniel Block argues that Shamgar (Judges 3:31) who delivered Israel was a mercenary in Pharaoh’s army, a man of valour, and that he was named after a Canaanite goddess of war, and bore a military cognomen, Ben Anath. An Egyptian troop had fought against the Sea Peoples between 1198-1166, who had their base in northern Lebanon, and the Song of Deborah associates Shamgar with problems in Northern Israel. Shamgar son of Anath by Daniel Block (3-31)
Hays argues with some Arminians on eternal security. i) Hays asks them to defend how repentance is voluntary, but faith is involuntary (i.e. the result of a choice, not a choice), from the Scriptures. How is faith the result of a choice? Do we believe something because we choose or because it’s believable? If the latter, don’t we already believe it? Do they really think its tenable to say we choose to find something believable/unbelievable? ii) Moreover, if faith is a product of choice, it still means that on libertarian grounds an individual is free to either believe or disbelieve Christ. So how does perseverant faith differ from saving faith? Don’t both require us to repent of our sins and trust in Christ? Why is conversion voluntary via LFW but perseverance not? iii) To the Arminian that holds that we won’t fall away, Hays points out that this sidesteps why we won’t – because something keeps us from falling. The can’t effects the won’t. Arminian favoritism
Hays quotes Gene Green’s introduction to Jude, which points out that Jude made use of the ‘rhetoric of slander’, the counterpart of laudatio, the praise of noble character and deeds. i.e. this rhetoric vilifies the opponent analogous to the way one praises his addressees. Jude has no intention of persuading the heretics, so he employs the well-known tactic of denouncing his opponents. Looking at 2 Peter as well, it is noted that the performative dimension of language has been neglected in favour of the propositional, so we neglect how the NT seeks to persuade its readers. We need to ask what it’s doing, not just what it’s saying. Hays observes that the use of judgmental, ad hominem language to characterize your theological opponents is a part of Biblical discourse, and should not be considered de facto unscriptural/unchristian. Christian discourse
AiG, responding to those who seem to insist that the Shroud of Turin is or could be the actual burial shroud of Christ, notes that this has zero basis in Scripture whatsoever. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/05/feedback-testing-the-shroud-of-turin
Bird thinks Philip Jenkin's book The Lost History of Christianity is “brilliant”, covering material other than the Latin Church and its Protestant offshoot, which most material focuses upon. Of note, newsworthy places like Basra, Mosul, Tikrit were once thriving Christian centres prior to the coming of Islam. Bird highlights a few points/quotes: i) The idea that heterodox groups were suppressed by orthodox groups with the political support of Rome is a myth. ii) What we see in places is not groups trying to add books, but prune them, from the Scriptures. iii) “The deep conservatism of these churches, so far removed for papal or imperial control, make nonsense of claims that church bureaucracy allied with empire to suppress unpleasant truths about Christian origins.” iv) Speaking of churches in society, “Too little adaptation means irrelevance; too much leads to assimilation and, often, disappearance.” v) the history of the church includes advances, triumphs, set backs, dark times, and losses. The blood of the martyrs has often been the seed of the church, but at other times it has meant the end of the church when the last martyr falls. Being a persecuted minority is perhaps the biblical norm. World Christianity- Ancient and Modern
Hays comments yet again on a Scripturalism, noting an argument that the command to multiple to Adam and Eve indicates innate knowledge. i) This uses induction, taking an inference based on just two humans, which Scripturalism denies one can do and have it count as knowledge. ii) They were created sui generis, so one can’t validly extrapolate from their unique creation to their posterity. iii) Adam and Eve didn’t have the Bible, so their experience is opposed to Scripturalism, according to which all knowledge is derivable from Scripture. Innate knowledge
To the argument, “Don’t I have to rely on the senses to obtain revelation?” Clark (Scripturalist) says this begs the question as to know one knows by means of the senses, and counters with “How do you know you have a book in your hands?” Hays notes: i) How do we know the argument demonstrating the failure of empiricism? How do we attain irrefutable knowledge of these irrefutable arguments? ii) How does a Clarkian even ask the question, for how does he know what a book, hand, English, etc. is? The real problem is what the Clarkian assumes in the very process of trying to deny the empiricist’s operating assumption. The Clarkian couldn’t question the existence of hands, etc. unless he had prior knowledge of what these are. Are we born with a knowledge of hands and books? How do you know-
Here’s a post continuing a point-form series on covenant theology. Here’s one quote: “The Law of Christ is not vague or nebulous. It has been revealed in the indicative and the imperative, which is given concrete expression in the ethical teaching of Jesus (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount) and in the apostolic exhortations to live in accordance with our union with Christ (e.g., Eph. 4-6; Col. 3, etc.). Although the Law of Christ is not identical with the Law of Moses, it does reach back to the Law of Moses in order to bring over those aspects of its teaching that are rooted in God's righteous nature and man's creation in God's image.” Covenant Theology Part 7
DeYoung quotes Doug Phillips, who writes that we all need theology in order to be mature Christians and we all have a theology whether we espouse one or not. True worship, holiness, a sense of assurance and peace with God, an understanding of the church, carrying out the church’s mission, spiritual transformation, and so on all depend on Biblical truth/theology, a right understanding of Scripture, and our thinking being in line with God’s word. “And those who presume to accept leadership roles in Christ's church have a special and particular calling to know, and live by, and minister in accordance with Biblical teaching (theology).” This applies to anyone who would take the place of one intentionally influencing people as to how they think about God – including artists, comedians, authors, etc. Doug Phillips- Hey, I'm No Theologian
Here’s an article on Sarah Palin and her enemies. While she tarnished herself, the media and political establishments have also tarnished her in the way they’ve treated her. “Male commentators will attack you for parading your children. Female commentators will attack you for not staying home with them. You’ll be sneered at for how you talk and how many colleges you attended. You’ll endure gibes about your “slutty” looks and your “white trash concupiscence,” while a prominent female academic declares that your “greatest hypocrisy” is the “pretense” that you’re a woman. And eight months after the election, the professionals who pressed you into the service of a gimmicky, dreary, idea-free campaign will still be blaming you for their defeat.” “Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true. But her unhappy sojourn on the national stage has had a different moral: Don’t even think about it. ” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06ross.html?_r=1
Hays wonders if certain science fiction scenarios aren’t deliberately fostering an irrational skepticism in people (e.g. could we be deluded about the real world, like the Matrix). i) These scenarios still presume the existence of an objective real world. ii) Just because we can image ourselves being delude doesn’t mean you can actually be deluded [think on this, it’s a good point] – just because you imagine you’re superman doesn’t mean you can be! iii) It’s possible to doubt what you know and what is actual, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s true. Harsh Realm
Manata points out that while the Arminians they debate universally resort to the principle of alternative possibilities as a necessary prerequisite for moral responsibility, many indeterminists actually deny the PAP. William Lane Craig thinks that so long as a decision isn’t causally determined, it doesn’t matter if he can actually make a contrary choice (he argues from the idea that if God had known you’d do something different He wouldn’t have created you, but this doesn’t mean your choice isn’t causally unconstrained). Michael Bergmann defends Frankfurt’s counterexamples to the PAP. Manata also quotes David Hunt, Linda Zagzebski, and Eleonore Stump to similar effect. Basically, they seem to argue along the lines that even if some entity would have forced you to do something if you hadn’t have done A, but you did A, so there was no causal contribution from this entity, this in no way subtracts from your responsibility, even though you had no alternative live possibility. A Divided Front- Libertarians at odds with each other on the doctrine of PAP
Bird, looking at Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (eds.), A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to the "Left Behind" Eschatology, thinks that though Reformed folks tend to be either amillennial or postmillennial, Chung presents a good case for a Reformed and covenantal premillenialism. There’s a lot in this post, but here’s some highlights: i) The dichotomy between emphases on redemption in Reformed theology and kingdom in dispensational is false as these are correlative concepts. i.e. covenant theology need not dispense of theocratic aspects. ii) Reformed theology has tended to spiritualize key passages. iii) Chung takes Gen. 1:26-28 as no cultural mandate, but as showing that God aims to establish His rule through vice-regents, and God wanted Adam to have a priestly/kingly role, which was lost through sin, but to be recovered by the seed of Gen. 3:15. iv) God’s purpose is both spiritual and physical dominion. Jesus fulfills the roles first given to Adam. v) Chung calls interpreting the promises of the Abrahamic covenant spiritually an act springing from ‘unwitting gnostic tendencies’. vi) The millennial kingdom is where Jesus fulfills the priestly/regal dimensions of the first Adam’s kingdom (Rev. 20:6, kings and priests), and thus this kingdom is a restoration and fulfillment of the Edenic kingdom, being the penultimate realization of the kingdom blessing/promise, with the new Jerusalem in the new heavens/earth being the ultimate/eternal realization. vii) Chung’s understanding squares with second century millenial interpretations of Revelation by Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Covenant Theology and Historic Pre-Millennialism
While evolutionists are claiming rapid evolution in the case of some lizards transplanted to the island, the most notable claim being a ‘totally new gut structure’, AiG anatomist notes that the original lizards did have the ability to digest plant material; they simply preferred insects for roughly 95 percent of their dietary needs. The new muscular valve they have is an enlargement of the muscles already present. It’s not a new feature but a favouring of something already there. Researchers so far can’t quantify the genetic basis for the change, suggesting the ‘evolution’ involved no new genetic info. McGill University biologist Andrew Hendry noted, “All of this might be evolution. The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes.” So far, there’s nothing more than natural selection. But ironically the speed of the observed changes is in line with the idea that the original created kinds could give rise to the biodiversity we see today. Indeed, the findings thus far are confirmation of the creationist model. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/06/news-to-note-06062009
Hays notes that the average Arminian thinks that you can’t make a real choice unless the future is open-ended, and since they think people do make ‘real’ choices, they think future is open-ended. However, people make choices all the time, be it short or long term (to do something tomorrow, you might need to choose something today). They make plans, but the reality is that everyone dies, and the future is closed to them past that point. Libertarians make such choices even though they admit that they might be dead. They go through the same psychological process of choosing, for a closed future, as they would if it were an open future. It’s exactly the same mental deliberation, even though they know sooner or later they are planning and choosing for a closed future. Are they self-deluded? The implication here is that they admit in their actions that you needn’t have an ‘open’ future for ‘genuine’ ‘choice’. Choosing the future
HT Challies: “"In their new book, 'The Mirror Effect,' addiction medicine specialist Drew Pinsky and business professor S. Mark Young argue that following the foibles of reality TV stars and other celebrities is not a wholly harmless pastime. The more time we spend observing the shocking, materialistic and egotistical behavior of reality TV stars, they argue, the more likely we are to mimic that behavior in our own lives and view the pathological self-centeredness of these 'Joe Six-Pack' celebrities as normal. "” Being Degraded by Reality TV
JT asks where TULIP was first used/arose: “apparently the first recorded use of the acronym is in Loraine Boettern's popular book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, published in 1932.” The Origin of TULIP- (Updated!)
Phillips chides pastors for using mispronouncing Greek/Hebrew words. If you’re going to say it, know it. Know what you say, say what you know, or don’t say anything. i) If you don’t know Greek/Hebrew, learn it – you’re teaching Greek/Hebrew literature. ii) Stay away from Greek/Hebrew if not, or do your due diligence and ask an expert. iii) Often saying it can come across as preening, so be careful anyway. This is all a reflection of how seriously one takes the pulpit. Just going on and on, pulling things off the top of your head, is unfathomable if you actually respect the pulpit. Think overall credibility as well – if you don’t do your due diligence in this area, how do we know you did it elsewhere? Say it right, or don’t say it. Pastordude- please, before you say that word
Paul Helm: “Adopting Byrne’s language (HG 203), we may say that in standard libertarian theodicy [i.e. Arminianism], God knowingly created and sustained the person of Adolf Hitler, infallibly knowing that Auschwitz would follow, while retaining the power to cut short this devilish regime at any time. On this view, God has from all eternity been planning and purposing states of affairs with the infallible knowledge that horrendous evils will result from certain exercises of human free agency, and chooses to do nothing about it. There are of course important differences between libertarian and compatibilist theodicies. But is there much of a moral difference?” The Arminian authorship of sin
Ross Anderson argues that although the Book of Mormon does not define most of the significant Mormon doctrines, it’s enduring relevance is found in its place in the LDS experience. We need to understand the Mormon people in the context of their culture, and so it’s important that evangelicals be able to address the Book of Mormon. Many LDS, like others, do not necessarily hold their beliefs as a matter of truth and falsehood, and therefore cognitive arguments are insufficient. Understanding the Book of Mormon by Ross Anderson
Swan posts a paper on Roman Catholic “Tradition”. Defusing the Catholic apologetic use of Tradition causes the fall of the entire system. It needs to be exposed as an incoherent authority, fraught with double standards, and unable to meet the qualification of theopneustos (God breathed) revelation. If the scriptures truly are the believers infallible sole rule of faith, it should follow necessarily that any other rule claiming a similar pedigree will be exposed as a counterfeit. What is Tradition according to Rome? There isn’t a consensus in Rome as to the exact content. “Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth. Does Tradition function as the interpreter of scripture, or is it interpreted by scripture, or do they interpret each other? Is the content of Tradition confirmed by historical scrutiny, or is it an unwritten opinion only confirmed by a movement within the developing church?” Swan goes on to note that Romanist apologists appeal to whichever view is convenient, sometimes advocating contradictory answers: (i.e. partim partim, wherein oral tradition came down beside Scripture, removing the need to find doctrines in Scripture, versus material sufficiency, wherein the Scriptures contain everything implicitly or explicitly. All would claim harmony with Trent, and while chiding Protestants for private interpretation, they are unable to prove this harmony with Rome’s official position. They cannot tell you with any infallible clarity exactly what is meant by Tradition, or exactly what Rome's definitive statements mean. Now Romanists are increasingly trying to convert Protestants by appealing to Scripture, typically using 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15, John 20:30, and John 21:25 in defense of the Catholic understanding of Tradition, supposedly as proof of an oral tradition – but they never explain why the notion of a period in which the gospel was oral necessarily means God intended extra-biblical revelation to be passed on via Tradition, but simply conclude that if it was ever oral, God intended more than what was inscripturated. The assumption, unproven, in 2 Thess. 2:14-15 is that unwritten traditions referred to are different than those which were written. Yet this verse speaks of the Gospel, not papal infallibility, indulgences, the assumption of Mary, etc. 2 Thess. 2:5 indicates the content told is the same as the content written. Moreover, church history doesn’t support their traditions, as their traditions appear later, and they disappear before you’d trace them back even close to the first century. Such appeals end up reading a medieval Romanist view of Tradition anachronistically back into the fathers. Tradition as Viewed by Popular Roman Catholic Apologists... and a Response
Hays points out that every card player is a determinist, going into the game knowing that he can do nothing to alter the order of the cards. But it’s his ignorance of the actual sequence, along with his knowledge of abstract possibilities, which creates the conceptual space for him to deliberate, decide, and act on his decision. Is this card player not really choosing because he’s deliberating amongst abstract possibilities, of which only one will deterministically result? It is psychologically possible to simultaneously contemplate contrary choices, but not to simultaneously act on them, so ‘one possibility at a time’ is an objective limitation imposed by time in conjunction with logical (in-)compossibilities. We don’t need to think, say, two choices are live possibilities, but only be ignorant of the outcome, so as to choose and act upon abstract possibilities. God knows true future propositions because God causes the future, via primary or secondary causality. In Molinism, libertarian freedom only applies at the level of possible worlds, but not the actual world, since the actual world realizes one possibility to the exclusion of others (since God instantiates that world). So even if we accept libertarianism, God is never confronted with a situation in which our choice restricts his choice, since there’s a possible world which has every choice. But, and herein lies the contradiction, the conventional definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do otherwise in the very same situation – so there’s no LFW in the actual world, yet they're trying to preserve it. Libertarian freedom precludes either simple foreknowledge or middle knowledge. And determinism does not preclude mental deliberation; such deliberation is predetermined itself. Betting on a closed future
Hays has some thoughts on hell here. He points out at the end that the yearning for divine justice, “How Long, O Lord?” is a prevailing refrain in Scripture, but some of us can’t identify with this because we’ve had such pretty charmed lives. [A de facto objection to hell sounds loving at first, but its really not for those who have suffered immense evil at the hands of men in this life.] Hell, Calvinism, and those wretched Dwarfs
Hays comments on a claim by an Eastern Orthodox that Calvin was a theological voluntarist. Was Calvin a voluntarist-
Here’s an excerpt from Freedom of the Will by Edwards, on the notion of liberty and moral agency. Excerpt From The Freedom of the Will by Edwards
Mohler writes that our mission is to convince Americans of the sanctity of every human life—born and unborn. The murder of Dr. Tiller does not serve that cause. Mohler wants to make clear that violence in the womb will never be overcome by means of violence outside the womb. The sanctity of human life and our duty to defend the innocent comes within a context of respect for the rule of law and the acknowledgment that it is the duty of government to use its own means to protect life and to serve justice. Mohler points to how Bonheoffer reasoned that the Nazi regime was beyond moral correction and therefore no longer legitimate. But America isn’t Nazi Germany. The horrible lesson of Wichita is this: Those who would use violence do not serve the Culture of Life. They are agents of the Culture of Death. Mohler has a footnote rejecting the embarrassing efforts of Christians who try to draw an analogy with Bonheoffer, yet don’t engage in his deep moral and theological reasoning, nor have they, like him, come to the conclusion that they must oppose the (Nazi) regime in totality, risking imprisonment and far worse. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3909
No comments:
Post a Comment