2009-08-29

GenderBlog responds to the rejection of historic Christianity in former President Carter’s article, "Losing My Religion for Equality." i) Baptists are people of the Book, and he rejects the reality that God created men first, that men and women are co-heirs in Christ and equal in value but have different roles as designed by God. Carter’s main authority is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, a human document, and thus he rejects the authority of Scripture. ii) Carter rejects inerrancy, claiming that the Bible's arguments for male leadership are merely a product of its ancient cultural context, unjustly patriarchial, and should be rejected. He thinks we should understand them by exalting women according to current feminist sensibilities, yet the Bible already exalts women – biblically. This hermeneutic enables anyone to interpret Scripture as he sees fit. This undermines the Gospel itself. Dear President Carter - Part 1

Continuing to respond to Carter, GenderBlog writes: i) Christianity stands with Carter and others against the denigration of women, but Carter misses that it is unique among world faiths in its high regard for women as persons whom God has made in His image. Christianity rejects the denigration and objectification of women in pornography, the tossing aside of the pregnant girl by her boyfriend like garbage, and so on. God has rather woven into the fabric of creation a picture of the Trinity in the relations of men and women. God calls submission to authorities good; He calls a wife’s submission to her husband good, and such Gospel-saturated relationships by no means denigrate women. ii) Carter’s swapping of the Scriptures for a human document is of the likes of the great even in Rom. 1, the swapping "the truth of God for a lie." We dare note pronounce ourselves God, seeking our own autonomy so as to fabricate truth contrary to God’s word. iii) One’s views of manhood and womanhood hold profound implications for Christianity theology and the Gospel itself. Dear President Carter - Part 2

Hays responds to scattered objections against Calvinism by Perry Robinson. i) Hays notes that apologists like William Lane Craig are great scholars, but due to their inconsistent theology can at times undermine what they are doing (unlike White). ii) Saying that Calvinism holds that human actions are determined by their nature is a bit ambiguous – the claim isn’t that nature selects for a particular action, but for a range of action. The kind of nature selects for the kind of action. i.e. it’s more of an exclusionary principle. It’s not the nature, but the decree, which selects for particular actions. iii) What about pre-fall angels/humans? This is a valid concern – if they are good as to their nature, from where does the evil action arise? But this isn’t just a problem for Calvinism. Perry’s own suggestion “while good and innocent, they are not yet righteous. That is acquired through practice” doesn’t sever the link between nature or choice, but rather changes the output of nature by changing the natural input, nor does it explain how a good agent does evil. Indeed, Calvinist’s say Adam’s nature wasn’t “fixed” in goodness, so by objecting to Calvinism on these grounds Perry objects to his own argument. iv) Bringing the loss of free will into the debate brings in the philisophical issue of libertarian versus compatibilist/semicompatibilist free will.v) In Romans 9, Perry fails to distinguish between national election and soteric election. Paul draws that distinction in Romans. vii) If desires determine actions, how is it that Adam, with a good nature, had evil desires? Scripture uses a tree/fruit, cause/effect metaphor. Even if Adam is an exception to the rule, we can’t use that exception to overthrow the Scriptural principle in general. Hays has elsewhere offered his own solution [I believe in terms of possible agents], but there’s a difference between philosophy and revealed theology. The former is only as good as its intuitive reasoning; the latter stands irrespective of it. viii) It’s disanalogous to compare man and God in terms of choice because God is a se, and necessary. Walking on water

Hays continues to point out that while Perry says that agents with a beginning are not yet fixed in the natural goodness, and while good and innocent, they are not yet righteous, he says that Christ is the paradigm for humanity. i) Did Christ lack righteousness? Did he acquire it through trial and error? ii) Does this mean there was a time when He was not impeccable? Did He acquire impeccability through trial and error? iii) The divinity of Christ can’t be invoked to resolve this if He is the paradigm of humanity unless one holds the intrinsic righteousness and impeccability of all humanity in union with divinity via the hypostatic union. To sin or not to sin

Hays quotes Jim Hamilton on Genesis and Gospel inerrancy. i) As to Genesis, he is ok with Beale’s view that the creation narratives depict the creation as a cosmic temple because the universe is built for the worship of God and communion between God and his people. While there seem to be conflicting pieces of information, he’s content to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt given the amount he does not know. ii) A real contradiction in the Gospels would be, Jesus descended from David, yet in another, Jesus did most certainly not descend from David. But we don’t have those; we have bits of different pieces of information. Given what we know, it takes as much faith to assert error as it does to imagine harmonies. He is convinced that the Bible is totally true and trustworthy. Hamilton on inerrancy

This post at Sola Panel makes the interesting point that while there are apt illustrations in film, etc. of the ‘fundamentalist upbringing gone wrong’ scenario that led to outright apostasy for a child, this is only one warning that we need to heed. What about the less interesting and less ‘dramatic’ ways a child enters into apostasy? Apostasy lit, non-lit and not-yet-lit

This gives two examples of non-violent resistance in the 1st century having success; once against Pilate so as to remove idols from Jerusalem, where the Jews laid down before Pilate’s forces, and again when Caligula put a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem, and tens of thousands of Jews petitioned for its removal. Non-violent resistance does not mean a withdrawal from history. The Possibility of Nonviolent Resistance in the 1st Century

T-fan answers three objections to the Scripture’s teaching that women are not to be pastors. i) “The Scriptures are Culturally Conditioned” – the reason given goes back to creation. ii) “What if the woman is really edifying?” We don’t break God’s commands for practicality, even if she’s the best preacher since Whitefield. One may as well let his wife be a harlot to evangelize more people. The only reason that they find this objection persuasive is that they don't take God's prohibition on women pastors as seriously as they take the 7th commandment. iii) “Not enough Bible verses say it!” How many times does God have to say something? This is the worst objection. No Women Pastors

To the objection that Calvinism is flawed because it uses the greater good defence, because such a defence supposedly undermines God’s omnipotence because God could have used a direct way to attain His goals rather than rely on evil, Hays notes that the example of the use of Pharaoh and the sorcerers, and God’s engineering of the crucifixion, would then be contrary to God’s omnipotence (i.e. the Bible directly presupposes the greater good defence). Against the reformed theodicy

Patton goes after the statement, “I was going to preach on this, but the Holy Spirit led me to preach on this (at the last minute).” He calls this stupid. The assumptions required to adopt such homiletic detours are irresponsible to all and misunderstands the way God works in the life of the church. i) An assumption is that the Spirit is not/was not present in the preparation process. If He wasn’t, how will He be there when you deliver? If He was, then did God change His mind at the last minute? The delivery is simply the product of your life, study, preparation, and daily walk with God. ii) Perhaps you’re just blaming the Holy Spirit? You didn’t do sufficient prep, or you aren’t ready, and you’re hoping to shift responsibility for whatever comes out of your mouth (even to your own eyes)? iii) It’s manipulative. The third commandment has nothing to do with swearing and everything to do with protecting God’s reputation, and you’re basically saying, “This sermon is really from God,” You are using his reputation by way of putting a “hands-off” authentication on your teaching, especially since this means any criticism someone has of your sermon is shifted to being enmity with God! iv) This also arises from a gnostic bent, a separation between the mundane and the sacred, as if everything that is of God must have a halo around it. v) Those who point to Jude’s “I felt it necessary” miss his point. The reason for the change is not some last minute anointing of the Holy Spirit, but because of the expediency of the subject for the current situation; it has nothing to do with prep. He purposed to write one thing, then felt convicted to write another due to circumstances. “I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This” . . . And other Stupid Statemen

Helm writes that for both Calvin and the Stoics, because the order of things is a causal, teleological order, we cannot be idle or imprudent if certain of our goals are to be achieved. The Stoics reject the ‘idle argument’ that if the future is fixed then there is nothing that we presently do that can affect or influence it. Neither hold the view that the future is fixed irrespective of causal connections. For the stoics, some events are causally necessary and sufficient. Sometimes they are logically necessary. Still, the relation of the elements that are co-fated may be weaker than such a necessary causal connection. For an action to be non-futile is need only be the probability that it is a necessary condition for triggering or preventing a prospective cause. In Calvin’s theism, the decree is necessary but not sufficient. The decree must take effect in time, and necessary factors must be ordained in the correct causal and teleological order. Note that in neither scheme, be it fate or decree, is “I’m fated” or “God decreed” a good reason for doing something. We have no (or very little) epistemic access to the future – all we know is that to do something we want there are necessary steps. It is no way to live to do nothing and hope your end is achieved - Effort is causally contributory to an envisaged end. Having reasons are explanations for why we act, and our actions are decreed. Also, in both schemes, if it were the ‘simple’ fatalism, then, if Joe is fated to climb a ladder, no matter what, then nothing else would causally explain why he climbed the ladder, and whether he wanted to or not has nothing to do with it. Calvin appeals to co-fatedness to answer the idle argument. Those convinced of the doctrine should view all life not only in terms of secondary causes ('means') but in terms of God's will, the primary cause, yet not forgetting or neglecting the place of secondary causes. Calvin notes that we have clear duties from God on living, guarding life, etc. Yet the one who thinks a danger isn’t to be guarded against, since if it’s willed, it will be, or vice versa, is way outside Scripture thinking, since God has commanded you to avoid it. The difference with Stoicism is that God is working through immanent causes and they have a transcendent source. That which happens is the result of God’s use of means to achieve his ends, means which he also decrees, of course, and also announces the connection between means and ends. Therefore, while the future is fixed, we approach it as if it is open. One should hope for the success of all endeavours of obedience to God’s commands. Later Stoics held Fatalism should promote a prudent approach to life. For Calvin, the ‘will of God’ is pivotal, encompassing both decree and command, and belief in his providence promotes confidence together with a willingness to do what he has commanded arm us against the “undeniable vagaries and (epistemic) uncertainties” of the decree. Also, God’s determination confers necessity to that which otherwise would not be. The prophesy that Christ’s bones would not be broken is co-fate and co-decreed with the necessary events to fulfill it. There is no causal series without the one who ordains it, and it is necessary. Calvin does not like immanent fatalism, and rejects astrological fatalism. Are there any contingencies? No. But God does decree in a way that is consistent with the varied natures of things, so the actions of agents are voluntary. ‘Chance’ is a purely epistemic idea – i.e. things seem fortuitous to us; they are really not. That which God has ordained is not in itself necessary, it must be the product of causes; Calvin rejects a deistic fatalism, and holds that God pays attention to the particular. Agents are not the mere product of external causes, but God works through the natures of agents. Calvin was less concerned, though, with theoretical issues than pastoral issues. He’d reject the “it’s ordained so I’m not to blame” not just because he has an argument against it, but because this is an immodest argument, seeking to safeguard wickedness. He warns against invalid inferences from the theoretical/speculative, and likely wouldn’t think appealing to a hierarchy of agents and the distinction between doing and willingly permitting are sufficient to explain God's relation to sin. Calvin and the Stoics

Helm writes that in Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision Bishop Wright claims that God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness. Think about it: i) This means there is no other way for God to express righteousness. God must establish a covenant and be faithful to it if He is to be righteous. This seems… restrictive? Could God not have established a covenant? ii) Wright doesn’t think making a covenant (with Abraham, say) is God acting righteously. But everything somehow changes when it comes to keeping it. iii) Now, Piper notes that this understanding starts and stops with God’s actions, and doesn’t go deep enough. God’s righteousness and love and faithfulness and goodness are not all synonyms. What is it about God’s righteousness that inclines Him to do this? Behind each there is the assumption that there is something about God’s righteousness that explains why He acts as He does. But Wright doesn’t ask this. iv) But this isn’t all – there is the question of the coherence of any understanding of God’s righteousness that doesn’t begin with who God is. Being comes before acting. God does righteousness because He is righteous. Acting faithfully is a consequence of being faithful. v) Helm notes the relevance of Piper’s point in general: it is at present hugely fashionable to think of theology in narrative form: in terms of covenant (Horton), speech-act theory and ‘theodrama’ (Vanhoozer), and of history (N.T. Wright), for example. This emphasizes history, redemptive history, biblical history, ‘biblical theology’, downplaying or abandoning the categories of systematic theology. But Piper has nailed the problem here. They all need what these cannot deliver – they need a doctrine of God. Piper isn’t shrinking the conversation, but broadening it! God’s righteousness is his resolve to be true to himself, in all aspects of his character, and this is the source of all of these acts of God. The holiness/glory of God is the ultimate standard of ‘right’. “God’s righteousness is no more defined by his covenant-keeping than a man’s integrity is defined by his contract keeping.” vi) Wright’s response, “‘God’s righteousness’ here is his faithfulness to the covenant, specifically to the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, and that it is because of this covenant that God deals with sins through the faithful, obedient death of Jesus the messiah” begins too far down the theological line, excluding any reference to a need for a covenant. Does God’s righteousness have nothing to do with the need for a covenant? Why is it necessary to deal with sin? Wright reduces God’s righteousness to a set of His actions - the fundamental question is, what character does the God who does all this have? vii) Wright says believers are declared to be ‘in the right’. But how do we know the court is righteous? How does this happen? What trespasses are not counted? What is is about Christ that results in them not being counted? Wright doesn’t like talking about the basis, but then answers the very question he doesn’t think we should ask – he says Christ’s substitutionary death is the ‘foundation’ (another word for basis). So Wright is much closer to the traditional view here, since once he sees the need for an account of the basis of justification, then the concept of substitution is pushed on him by Paul. So for Wright, God’s righteousness is seen in his condemnation of sin – so it’s more than covenant faithfulness. ix) Wright uses the term ‘reckon righteous’, which is the same as to impute! “Almost in spite of himself, Wright identifies three vital concepts which he sees in Paul – Christ’s death the ‘basis’ of justification; then substitution - Christ is substituted as the faithful Israelite; and the outcome - as a result God ‘reckons’ us to be ‘in the right’.” Why Covenant Faithfulness is not Divine Righteousness (and cannot be)

Rhology, debating an EO objector to inerrancy, notes that while this individual appeals to the tradition of the church and apostolic succession, his denial of inerrancy undermines this claim. After all, multiple people are the reason why there are errors – and inspiration doesn’t guarantee airtight synchronization, in his view. Yet multiple witnesses to the apostles are the reason why the church can apparently be trusted. Didn’t the Gospel writers hear? On what basis is the apostolic tradition (incl. teachings like theosis) faithfully transmitted but the Scriptures aren’t? if inspiration doesn't necessarily produce factual data, how do you know that the Resurrection, for example, actually, factually happened? How would you evangelize with this argumentation? Why is it better to ascribe error to a production of the Holy Spirit rather than to admit that you don't understand how it could all work together? EO folk talk about mystery a lot, but abandon it here! And if God-breathed Scripture is errant, what hope have non-theopneustos writings from men who were *not* "carried along by the Holy Spirit"? Eastern errancy

Phillips gives part one of his testimony. It’s a great read. Here’s the major flow: i) He grew up in a non-Christian home. ii) He passed through a very young atheist phase, to agnosticism, then at the start of the '70's to a pre-new-age cult known as Religious Science. iii) This told him all he wanted to hear: God was in all of us, expressed itself as all of us, demanded nothing, gave everything; there was no sin, only things people brought on themselves by their state of mind. iv) They sought the deeper sense of the words of Scripture, which was always the opposite of the plain sense. v) Jesus constantly needed ‘clarifying’; this seemed a minor snag (e.g. He meant to say that Hell was unreal, not a place of God's wrath, just a phase of consciousness; and that we could save ourselves from that consciousness at any time. But He kept speaking of it as if it were an objective place of immense and eternal torment; Jesus also kept harping on Himself instead of talking about how we’re all equal…) vi) The major catch was himself – he was a selfish wretch. What he found within was nothing like anything he'd ever want to call "God." vii) At 17, he came undone. February 11- the most pivotal day in my life (part one [requested classic re-post] )

Hays writes (for those not impervious to reason) in response to the idea that using evil equates to doing evil. i) Counterexamples are easy: A 22 year old in perfect health is murdered; the doctor saves six lives through organ harvesting. That’s using evil. ii) Say a scientist from an evil regime defects at the offer of asylum, and we use this information to oppose the evil regime. It’s evil to support an evil regime. Is it evil to exploit the situation to take it down? iii) Say we intercept communications between enemies plotting an attack on a city. Is it evil to use this information to thwart it? Using evil and doing evil

Hays notes, citing Matatics at length, that his two-step apologetic for Roman Catholicsm is to first establish that the church of Rome is the only true church in existence, and then establish that the only true church is nonexistent as we know it today (he rejects the Second Vatican Council). When Rome was built in a day

How do we forgive people? Most of the time we probably make a decision to forgive. Sometimes this is easy; the thing can be left in the past. Sometimes it’s not this easy: The sin committed against us continues to affect us in ways we might not have expected. Sometimes the sin isn’t anomalous but an expression of something integral to the offender. Sometimes feelings reemerge. i) Our forgiveness is not the same quality as God’s God’s is powerful and irrevocable, changing our status. This is the basis for our forgiveness of others. But ours is not this perfect. Sometimes we re-forgive. We need to work at it, like all other things, incl. love, and so on. This is a helpful reminder. ii) There are actions in line with forgiveness. Hyper-introspection will always tend to doubt; focus outside yourself on actions consistent with forgiveness, like prayer for the person, or seeking their welfare. iii) The practical way to depend on God is prayer; constant prayer is essential here. The nuts and bolts of forgiveness

DeYoung comments on the new heaven and earth, which is first depicted in Isaiah 65. i) The things of old will not come to mind. The ways of this world, with its sin and suffering, will be forgotten. ii) There will be no groans or cries, only joy and laughter and gladness. God will rejoice and be glad in his people. God will delight in his finished work of consummation. iii) There will be no death, nor fear of death. iv) There will be no predators, no thieves, no war, no poverty, no AIDS, no hunger, no relational animosity, no disappointment, no slander – none of it. v) Best of all, Jesus will be there, “We will be able to see him, touch him, talk with him, ask him anything, learn from him, and most of all worship him. We will love to praise him and laud him. We will love to sing with brothers and sisters in a thousand different languages. We will love to hear him say “Well done, good and faithful servant.” And we will love to shout as a great multitude, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne , and to the Lamb.”” God’s dwelling is with man.  The Holy Mountain 

Courtney at Gender Blog notes that there is a lot of talk about men being careful to guard their eyes, but not so much with women. The idea is usually, “it’s ok to watch this if the guys aren’t around,” usually referring to female nudity. i) God wants our minds to be free from immorality because what the culture is telling us about modesty and sexuality is never what he designed it to be. ii) We are to abstain from all sexual immorality (Eph. 5:3). iii) She lists three temptations in such cases: to comparison (leading to discontent), to a false understanding of beauty (godliness, modesty, and a quiet spirit is what God deems beautiful (1 Peter 3:3-4).), and to lust. Women lust as much as men, including looking a certain way to lust for attention. Such things lure us to the promise of the world, which turns out to be an unsatisfying a lethal lie. So be careful little eyes what you see. Be Careful Little Eyes What You See

Hays cites Gordon Fee on Thessalonians, to the effect that Paul is in no way talking about who will be alive at the second coming, but rather emphasizing that being alive or dead is of no advantage or consequence with regard to it. Elsewhere Paul reckons with either possibility. St. Paul and the Parousia

Hays enumerates a list of recent New Testament Introductions and Old Testament Introductions. Bible introductions

T-fan has a lengthy discussion of some of Harold Camping’s arbitrary and self-contradictory ideas which underpin his highly complex view of eschatology. This discussion notes his simultaneous rejection of the grammatico-historical movement and his employment of it; his imposing arbitrary connections on the text, which are then beyond criticism, and so on. His ‘Jenga tower’ on which his date of the second coming is based comes crashing down if any of his numerous tenuous, arbitrary, and erroneous points are disproved. This is worth a read if for no other reason than it serves as a caution against silly eschatology. Camping Jenga

Hays has some comments in debating with people over at the Stand To Reason blog. Hays responds to the objection to the probability of the resurrection which uses an analogy of a Muslim messiah dying and resurrecting, which asserts that Christians, based on the background knowledge alone, must think this is plausible. i) What background knowledge? What promises? ii) Mohammed already eliminated Islam as a contender by predicating his prophetic credentials on the claim that his message was merely a confirmation of former Biblical revelation: “he told doubters to consult the People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews). Hence, he falsified his prophetic claims by his own standards.” iii) The atheists simply assert that the Bible is unreliable. iv) All the NT writers assume Jesus rose. It’s not just the four Gospels. v) They claim to be able to ‘run the numbers’ but don’t precisely define their terms, nor admit their numbers are only as good as their assumptions. vi) Where is the advantage of being reasonable if your reasonable beliefs are just as wrong as your unreasonable ones? vii) To the claim that we’re all skeptical of the supernatural – except here – this is an admission of the think, dripping bias of the skeptic. Many Christians don’t de facto rule out supernatural occurrences. viii) Plausibility is indexed to worldview. These skeptics are dogmatic; they’ve made up their minds already, they aren’t observing reality, and their view isn't based on the evidence–since they automatically discounts any evidence to the contrary. ix) Why should we accept their skepticism as the standard? Running the numbers. Engwer also has some comments on the nature of the debate here. Jon Curry's Losing Hand.

This is a good quote from Warfield: "The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation that follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged." ...a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted

Moore talks about the importance of telling stories to children, imagination, etc. Monsters under the Bed (and Other Biblical Doctrines)

In dealing with Harold Camping’s view that Christ died twice, T-fan makes some points on Revelation 13:8. i) It is legitimate to understand "slain" as modifying "Lamb" and "from the foundation of the world" as modifying "written,” which is in line with Rev. 17:8. ii) The expression "the Lamb slain" is a picture that John used previously in Revelation 5. iii) this ambiguity regarding the reference of "from the foundation of the world" is removed in many more recent translations. iv) Even if it did modify ‘slain’, why take this literally? “Lamb'” is symbolic – we can view him as "slain from the foundation of the earth" in the sense of that being his eternal purpose, not as him actually having been slain before the world was founded. Camping and the Atonement 

This post, citing a professor with respect to whether faith is irrational, observes that observation is a pillar of science, and observation must assume the reliability of the senses. Yet, how do we know they are reliable? Philosophers have long struggled with trying to find a non-circular way to defend the reliability of the senses. We cannot establish thisd through reason alone, and attempts to do it empirically rely on the very thing that needs to be proved. “The result is that we must trust our sense perception. We must have faith in our experience of the world.” Indeed, everything is ironically predicated on faith. Is Faith Irrational-