Pages

Thursday, June 14, 2007

"Attested To You By God" (Acts 2:22)

Jon Curry often makes false and misleading claims about Christianity. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) In a recent thread, he repeated a bad argument he's used before:


It looks more like a biblical proclamation. Kind of like Peter in Acts. He tells a beautiful story, full of claims that will appeal to his listeners desires and thousands convert on the spot without ever checking the claims. It's not logical, but it works....

Even a person that doesn’t have a “problem” with miracles should still be hesitant to just accept any miraculous claim hook, line, and sinker. Even if God does act in miraculous ways this doesn’t mean that he does it on a regular basis. Jews of the first century should be hesitant to accept such a claim, just as you should be skeptical of Benny Hinn’s supposed resurrection performances as well....

Whatever it was that persuaded them [the Jews who heard Peter speak in Acts] it was true, it wasn’t a checking of the facts, which is exactly what it should have been. I’m sure there were other factors beyond just the fact that the message was appealing to them. The persuasiveness and sincerity of the speaker was probably also a factor. You perhaps can think of other things that influenced the decision. My point is simply that what ought to have influenced there decision (fact checking) doesn’t appear to have played a major role, or a role at all for that matter.


I doubt that getting crucified like Jesus, or being treated as Jesus and His followers were treated by their surrounding society in other contexts, would "appeal to the desires" of Peter's listeners. Some of what Christianity offered them would be appealing, but much of it wouldn't be. Judaism was already providing them with a purpose in life, the hope of an afterlife, and other benefits.

Jon tells us that the people who heard Peter speak should have been "hesitant". He tells us that they should have sought evidence.

They were hesitant. And they had evidence.

Before Peter began speaking, they witnessed some of the miraculous results of the coming of the Spirit (Acts 2:5-7). Rather than accepting what they heard from these Christians who were speaking to them in tongues, the people who heard these Christians asked questions, and some opposed them (Acts 2:12-13). As we see repeatedly in the gospels, some people offered a naturalistic explanation in an attempt to dismiss a miracle claim (Acts 2:13). Peter then reasons with these people on the basis of common standards (Acts 2:15) and the similarity between Old Testament prophecy and what had just been witnessed (Acts 2:16-21). Peter then goes on to remind his listeners that Jesus had already been attested in their midst by miracles (Acts 2:22). He appeals to the common theme of a Davidic Messiah and how that theme is applicable to a resurrection (Acts 2:24-35). Peter's listeners were in the region where Jesus' execution took place and would have had weeks to hear reports of a resurrection and discussion of what had happened with Jesus' tomb, for example. They would have known that men like Peter were risking the same sort of treatment Jesus received from the governing authorities by making the claims they were making. Thus, the testimony Peter was offering, corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses (Acts 2:32), including people who had formerly opposed Jesus (Acts 1:14), carried much more evidential weight than Jon Curry suggests. Peter wasn't addressing people who had never heard of Jesus before. Rather, he was reminding them of, and expanding upon, something they had been suppressing (Acts 2:23). The blade was already in their chest, so to speak. Peter just pressed it further (Acts 2:37). Even after all of these things occurred, there are indications that the people still hesitated. Some rejected what Peter said. Those who were more receptive asked what they should do (Acts 2:37), but Peter spoke to them further before they did what he suggested (Acts 2:40). These people seem to have been hesitant both before and after Peter spoke.

Notice, also, that confirming signs continued afterward (Acts 2:43). Nobody honestly and thoughtfully reading the book of Acts should miss the fact that evidential concepts such as eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, and other confirming miracles are prominent. Much of what I've said about Acts 2 above is present in Acts 3 and beyond as well.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these people had never heard of Jesus before, hadn't witnessed the miraculous speaking in tongues, etc. Since Christianity believes in the supernatural convicting and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, it isn't required, within a Christian worldview, that every person have evidence such as what I've described above. Such evidence is useful for making an objective case for a belief system in a public forum like this one, but such an objective case isn't needed to justify personal conversion.

Since Jon mentions Benny Hinn again, readers may be interested in an article I wrote last year regarding the differences between the alleged miracles of Benny Hinn and those of Jesus Christ.

19 comments:

  1. Notice how Mr. Curry imputes his 21st century predilections onto these Jews in Acts.

    Why should this group "investigate" Peter's claims? Aside from the facts of the narrative itself, which Jason presented so well, it seems that Mr. Curry has forgotten the timetable of events. The events in Acts 2 are occurring at Pentecost, that is a mere 40 odd days from the events of the Passover at which Jesus was crucified.

    The people gathered are portrayed as being familiar with those events and Jesus' ministry (vs.22) In fact, the narrative seems to indicate that there were many there who present at both events, which would be quite logical. So, why would those people even need to investigate the claims Peter made in Acts 2? Would the news about the crucifixion itself not have been transmitted all over the land in that time? Doesn't Matthew's gospel record that from the very time of the Resurrection itself, the Jewish leadership started circulating a false story about it? Ergo, when the people gathered, they would have heard that something had, at the very least, been reported about Jesus after the crucifixion. Some may have been there doing the very thing Jon says they should have done, that is, looking into the stories about Jesus, the "miracle worker," killed a few weeks prior to find out if the rumors, whatever they were, were true.

    Regarding Hinn, and Peter, there is a massive disjunction between them. Hinn is a false teacher. So what if the miracles that he is said to perform are true, Scripture has a theology of demonic miracles. Miracles alone do not selfselect for divinity, nor do they self select for truth. In Scripture, there is a connection between the messenger, miracles if performed, and the message.

    Benny Hinn can't exegete his way out of a paper bag and regularly mishandles Scripture. Peter, by way of contrast, delivers a classic covenantal sermon on the New Covenant's beginning, the identity of Christ, and the Resurrection, appealing to OT prophecy. He even exposits the text for them properly within the methods used in his day. The message Peter preaches is true. Hinn's is false. The issue is not the miracles, but the message itself. The miracles confirmed the message, but, for Hinn there is no message to confirm.o

    ReplyDelete
  2. My main point, Jason, is that non evidence based conversions are very effective. If you don't like the example of Acts you can use Billy Graham events, Benny Hinn crusades. Go to any Pentecostal church and look at how conversions occur. Pull at the heart strings. Persuade people that they can be part of the wonderful family. Look at the rapid growth of the Mormon church. I think you can agree that these are not evidence based conversions. These people have a lot of success relative to Paul's infinite regress gun. Do you deny this?

    I stand by my claim that the three thousand that converted immediately did so primarily for non-evidence based reasons. You appeal to the supposed evidence of glossolalia (easily produced by the self deluded, I've done it myself), the ambiguous prophecy of Joel which can apply to anything (Pentecostals continue to apply it to modern events, like the Toronto Blessing, or Brownsville revival), the claim that these three thousand bystandards are aware of the evidence supporting Jesus miracles and empty tomb. You can't assume that, especially in light of the fact that glossolalia persuades these people. You say Peter appeals to the fact that Jesus is of David, but how can these people know this without looking into it? How can they trust these corroborative witnesses without looking into it? How can they know that former enemies are now supporters without looking into it?

    A major part of Peter's persuasive techniques involves the carrot and stick. Blame them for Jesus death, scare them into thinking that they will be punished, offer them the easy to swallow pill. They do. That's not reasonable. Facts should be checked. Claims verified.

    Now, if the issue here is the conviction of the Spirit, I think it is interesting that the Spirit seems to do a lot more convicting when appeals to evidence are avoided and appeals to emotion are emphasized. Lots more movement of the Spirit at Benny Hinn crusades. Lots more people becoming Christians. This is my main point, and I don't want you to lose sight of that, Jason. Benny Hinn does better than Paul Manata does with his infinite regress gun. That's a fact. Hinn appeals to emotion, more like Paul's "new" apologetic. He'll have more success with it. That's my opinion. Do you think he'll see more "Spirit movement" with the regress gun or more with the argument "see how well the gospel message speaks to you"? Do you know converts? Has anyone you know ever been converted by the regress gun? Which do you think will lead Paul to the greater number of conversions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow,

    Let's exegete the text, Jon.

    What was the nature of these tongues? Well, in context, the nations list corresponds to the list of nations in the Babel account. Luke is drawing a literary parallel. The nations gathered in Acts 2 are the nations scattered @ Babel.

    The tongues are presented as an undoing of what Genesis records at Babel. So, what they hear is not some unknown language. What they hear is the gospel spoken in their *own* language. That can be interpreted as either a miracle of speech (where different persons spoke one more different languages) or a miracle of hearing, where each person heard their native language while the speaker spoke another (Hebrew or Aramaic). Either one is acceptable in the bounds of exegeting the text.

    So, what you have isn't what you are stating. What you have is a miracle that specifically gets their attention. Why are they hearing their own language coming from the lips of these people?

    You continue to talk about claims needing to be verified, but, as I pointed out, they would *already* be aware of those. You've been told that the context does not support your meagre analysis, and yet you don't bother to actually interact with the text.

    You're right, Pentecostals do apply to their events. That's not the issue, since their "exegesis" does not begin to approach being correct. What Peter gives is an Apostolic interpretation of the text. What Peter gives is a direct relation to the event that is happening before their eyes.

    And let's not forget that what we have from Luke is largely a summary of the sermon.

    Which events should they have "investigated?" The tongues? This was happening in the Temple courts among people who knew the text. They weren't the biblical illiterates that populate the churches today. These were people in Jerusalem for Pentecost, a people steeped in the OT, familiar with the Messianic hope and the prophecies of Joel.

    You say Peter appeals to the fact that Jesus is of David, but how can these people know this without looking into it?

    You aren't interacting with Acts 2 or Jason.

    Jason said: He appeals to the common theme of a Davidic Messiah and how that theme is applicable to a resurrection (Acts 2:24-35)

    Look at the text. The text is not talking about Christ being "of David," eg. descended from David. However, the audience is in Jerusalem for Pentecost, in the Temple Courts. They knew the text. They also knew the claims about Jesus being "King of the Jews." This was a handful of weeks from the crucifixion. Discussing the work of David from a Psalm he wrote is certainly a good point of departure.

    However, Peter's claim here is not that Christ is "of David." Peter quotes from Psalms. This is a text identified with the Messianic hope in the rabbinical writings. They already knew this. Peter makes a logical analysis of David's words and exegetes the text, talking about how David died and is in the grave; Christ, by way of contrast died and rose from the dead).

    How can they trust these corroborative witnesses without looking into it?

    What you have not done is tell us why they should look into it in way that does not impose your peculiar 21st century sensibilities onto the text. Why should this particular group of people, who already had much first hand knowledge of Jesus and the claims about him investigate further?

    You say that they should investigate the resurrection, but here, the miracle of hearing testifies to that. They hear the claim, they see that Babel has been reversed, a miracle only God could do. Notice that Luke refrains from giving the application of Joel's prophecy.

    The connection is "the day of the Lord." The day of the Lord has begun this day is the gist of the connection. The people, representing the nations scattered at Babel, would logically connect the event that scattered the people into the nations in Genesis (a "day of the Lord" in itself), to this event, day in which the nations were united and Babel undone. Literarily, this is the theme of Acts itself, the gospel going to the nations and God making one people out of two (Jew and Gentile).

    The people were hearing "the great deeds of God" from the people speaking. Peter tells them to hear "these words" about Jesus as he moves from Joel's prophecy to Christ. So, the connection is that "these words" are about another great deed of God. Peter appeals to the predestinarian force of the crucifixion, which has covenantal overtones, and these were people who were faithful enough to the covenant to be in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

    What, precisely, does he tell them, then, that they do not know about Jesus? Nothing that would not have already at least heard or seen themselves, except for the resurrection, but we also know that a story was already in circulation about that. Read the end of Matthew.

    ou can't assume that, especially in light of the fact that glossolalia persuades these people. Neither the text, nor Jason say that glossolalia persuaded these people. It got their attention.

    A major part of Peter's persuasive techniques involves the carrot and stick. Blame them for Jesus death, scare them into thinking that they will be punished, offer them the easy to swallow pill. They do. That's not reasonable.

    A. Where in the text does he threaten them with punishment?

    B. Does he blame them for Jesus death? He tells them that they nailed him to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

    Is this blame or a statement of fact? Luke records that the crowd demanded Jesus death and called for Barabbas. Others record them directly stating that His blood be on them and their children, a text with covenantal overtones. Peter's own words about the promise of salvation being for them and their children speaks to forgiveness for what they had done when Jesus was crucified, which would mean, of course, that many if not all of those there that day were, in point of fact part of the crowd that had cried out to have Jesus crucified, so much of the evidence you say they did not have or should have checked out, they would have already known.

    So, he is not "blaming" them for anything that they themselves had not done and already acknowledged. He is *reminding* them of what they had done just five weeks or so beforehand. You're trying to make an emotive argument where none exists in order to tendentiously characterize the text.

    The text says that, upon hearing this, they were "cut to the quick." Peter does not tell them that they were going to be "punished." Rather he tells them to be saved from that perverse generation, which is, itself, a common prophetic phrase. If that was in their minds, it was a conclusion that they drew themselves. If what Peter was saying was true, then, yes, they did have good reason to think that, but the text does not explicitly make that connection. Was that pill easy to swallow? Likely not, since the text of the gospels and Acts actually pictures the Jews as rather proud and uptight. Repentance is not an "easy pill to swallow." Perhaps you grew up in the church of easy believism, but that, Mr. Curry, is not the biblical gospel.

    The text also states that Peter kept exhorting them with many words. So, you don't know what was said. Maybe they did ask more questions, maybe they did verify some facts, but it is also extremely likely that they had at least heard about a great deal, including the rumors of His resurrection, so it is simply untrue that they did not have any evidence. You are mirror-reading.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Manata has also replied in the original thread:

    "I think you’re talking to the wrong guy here. It is not my claim that Jesus wasn’t a jerk. I’m not asking you to be like Christ. I’m responding to the argument you made about seeing the fruit of Christians (in terms of love, joy, peace, etc) and I just find that Christians don’t look so great in my estimation. Christ doesn’t either, but it is not my view that he was nice or that you should try to be like him."

    Those weren't *my* arguments, they were Touchstone's. Glad to see you note his bade arguments, though.

    The "fruit" isn't based on a humanistic theory of love, Jon? Why think that?

    Anyway, you granted my point.
    If Jesus et al. acted like "jerks," and so do some Christians, then they're not not acting Christ-like, now are they?

    The argument that Christians are big meanies and not acting Christ-like is predicated on the fact that Jesus was a big nicey, not a big meany. So, thanks for granting my point. I knew you could grasp it.

    "Talk to witnesses, see what others with different views are saying. Compare one to another and decide which is more reasonable."

    This assumes that they didn't know the widely known fact that Jesus resurrected. This assumes that they hadn't checked with wittnesses. This took place after the resurrection, ya know? You're assuming a lot in the text, importing bagage. Like you think this is the first time these people heard of all this or something.

    So, your argument is predicated upon an argumentum ad ignorantium.

    Furthermore, they took it oin the testimony of Peter. Are you saying that testimonial evidence does not provide warrant? If so, why believe that I ate eggs for breakfast? You might say, 'cause I don't find that problematic. But, why assume that "God fearing Jews" would find the miraculous problematic?

    "That’s exactly right. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required to persuade the rational person of the claim."

    What is "extraordinary" is assumed by ones worldview. Thus I take the claim: Jesus did not rise from the dead" to be an extraordinary claim, so where's your extraordinary evidence? Furthermore, you're assuming that these people didn't have evidence. Peter's case on the word of God carries more weight than "asking eyewitnesses." Again, because their worldview was determinitive of levels of evidence. And, these people may well have had plenty of evidence to go off. You're assuming that because the text doesn't tell us these things then they didn't have evidence or reason for their belief. That is, you're resting your case on fallacious reasoning.

    " Even a person that doesn’t have a “problem” with miracles should still be hesitant to just accept any miraculous claim hook, line, and sinker."

    You're assuming that is the case here. But these "God fearing Jews" accepted fulfillments from the OT! No one was pushing the claims of some Buddhists teaching that Buddha was born from a slit in his mother's side.

    So, for example, when Jesus returns in Glory to judge the world, I'm not going to run up to him with a lab coat on, forcepts, my beaker and a test tube, and "empirically check him out." Perhaps he's an "illusion?" How would I know? Maybe I'm dreaming? How would I know. Gotta check it out.

    So, when he comes you do your thing and I'll do mine. let me know how your appraoch works out, okay? Point: Something consistent with my worldview doesn't need to be "checked out" before I assent to believe it.

    Anyway, since you admit that people can have beliefs with positive epistemic status, though they don't have propositional evidence in their favor, why couldn't that be the case here?

    "Regarding your claim that you’ve shown Touchstone to be wrong, and shown that he held to premise 1, I truly am having a hard time understanding the connections you are making. So I’m afraid I’m not really sure how to respond to any of it. I guess I’ll just run along. "

    Nice out, Jon. Perhaps we could discuss the areas you were having problems with and I could help? Though this doesn't explain your claims which contradict the facts of the post. Why didn't they "agree" with me? That's odd. I said, "some, not all, beliefs have positive epistemic status without propositional evidence in their favor." Why didn't they end the convo? T-stone replied: "We know some beliefs don't have evidence, but they *SHOULD*, emphasis his."

    Anyway, why aren't you "checking out" your beliefs on this matter?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jon Curry wrote:

    "My main point, Jason, is that non evidence based conversions are very effective. If you don't like the example of Acts you can use Billy Graham events, Benny Hinn crusades. Go to any Pentecostal church and look at how conversions occur. Pull at the heart strings. Persuade people that they can be part of the wonderful family. Look at the rapid growth of the Mormon church."

    Your Acts example was wrong, and it was wrong to a large degree. Since that example is significantly relevant to the founding of Christianity, and since it further illustrates your carelessness in evaluating Christianity, I decided to post about it in a thread of its own. Shifting to another context, such as what you suggest occurs at a Billy Graham event or in "any Pentecostal church" (as if you know), doesn't change the significance of your initial claims about Acts.

    You write:

    "I stand by my claim that the three thousand that converted immediately did so primarily for non-evidence based reasons."

    Why should we be concerned with whether you "stand by your claim" when you offer no evidence that would lead us to agree with it?

    In your initial comments, you failed to mention the many evidential factors involved in the context in which Peter was speaking. I, Gene, and Paul gave you multiple examples of evidence these people would have had or would have had relatively easy access to. You referred to how these people supposedly believed Peter without ever "checking the claims". You referred to how they "weren't logical". You told us that the people Peter was speaking to should have been "hesitant to just accept any miraculous claim hook, line, and sinker". As I've demonstrated, the text suggests that they were hesitant. You summarized your argument as follows:

    "My point is simply that what ought to have influenced there decision (fact checking) doesn’t appear to have played a major role, or a role at all for that matter."

    You claim that it had "no role at all". You've given us no reason to agree with that conclusion, and the text and context suggest that you're wrong, as we've demonstrated.

    You write:

    "You appeal to the supposed evidence of glossolalia (easily produced by the self deluded, I've done it myself)"

    As Gene has explained, you're misinterpreting the passage. Readers should note how often you do this, and they should note how ignorant you often are of even basic facts about Christianity.

    You write:

    "the claim that these three thousand bystandards are aware of the evidence supporting Jesus miracles and empty tomb. You can't assume that, especially in light of the fact that glossolalia persuades these people."

    Again, read Acts 2:12-13. Where does the text say that "glossolalia" persuaded these people? It doesn't.

    And you're the one who asserted that these people didn't have the sort of evidence you're referring to. It's not my responsibility to prove that they did have it. What can be demonstrated is that they were in the region where many of the relevant events occurred, that the events had occurred recently, that Peter was corroborated by other witnesses, that such witnesses were risking the sort of treatment Jesus faced by doing what they were doing, that Peter expected these people to be familiar with facts such as Jesus' performance of miracles and His empty tomb (Acts 2:22, 2:29), etc. Given such factors, your initial suggestion that the checking of facts "didn't have a role at all" is ridiculous.

    You write:

    "You say Peter appeals to the fact that Jesus is of David, but how can these people know this without looking into it? How can they trust these corroborative witnesses without looking into it? How can they know that former enemies are now supporters without looking into it?"

    Jesus had been carrying out a public ministry for years. Peter could reasonably expect his audience to have some familiarity with Him and the events surrounding His life.

    You write:

    "A major part of Peter's persuasive techniques involves the carrot and stick. Blame them for Jesus death, scare them into thinking that they will be punished, offer them the easy to swallow pill. They do. That's not reasonable."

    How is it "easy to swallow" to abandon the religion in which you were raised in order to follow a crucified felon in a hostile environment that had just resulted in the execution of that man?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason asks: "How is it "easy to swallow" to abandon the religion in which you were raised in order to follow a crucified felon in a hostile environment that had just resulted in the execution of that man?"

    Pretty easy, if you accept all the premises. "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Mt. 11:30) Even the gospel itself says it's easy. Is Jason Engwer now going to tell us, contrary to his own Jesus, that it's not easy?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerold,

    Maybe you should think through what you are saying instead of jumping in.

    Firstly where in the text being discussed does Peter promise an easy life. Address the argument at hand instead of throwing in obtuse comments.

    Secondly think about the statement. Yoke - used to harness oxen together for work, not for a frolick in the field. A modern equivalent would be "Put on these coveralls, work boots and tool belt, and I'll give you rest. So it needs a little more thought, no?

    Also to place the verse in context:

    25At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
    27"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

    28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."


    Where do you see an easy life being promised. What's easy is being spiritually yoked to Christ versus yoked to the world (or a religion that relies on works). That is bondage to Christ instead of bondage to sin. The former will give you rest for your soul (peace and reconcilliation with God), the latter won't.

    It's also easy in the sense that Christ is our Redeemer. He has done all the work - it's by grace that we have been saved.

    An dthirdly we take the whole counsel of scripture like this passage in the chapter preceding...

    37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

    These are not contradictory passages, for we carry the cross, we take on the yoke and that leads to spiritual rest.

    ReplyDelete
  8. WLOTTER has already said much of what needed to be said. The Christian life can be easy in some contexts while being difficult in others. The same was true of the Judaism of Peter’s audience. The Old Testament often speaks of God’s people as having peace, joy, and other blessings, but it also speaks of suffering in other contexts. Job had hope in God as he suffered, David took refuge in God and found forgiveness during times of grief and shame, etc. As WLOTTER has explained, the concept of taking a yoke and following Jesus implies the difficulty involved in such work. Jesus can promise ease in one context without denying that any difficulty will be involved in any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. wlotter: Firstly where in the text being discussed does Peter promise an easy life.

    Was that a question? If so, it needs the proper punctuation. Does Peter "promise an easy life"? Why should he need to? Peter is not Christianity's Lord and Savior, Jesus is. Isn't that correct? Jesus already made the promise, so why would Peter need to make it? And I don't expect that Peter would teach contrary to Jesus, do you?

    Wlotter: Address the argument at hand instead of throwing in obtuse comments.

    So, Jesus' words are now "obtuse comments"? Amazing! Besides, I was addressing a *question* posed by Jason Engwer, not an *argument*. Recall what he had asked: How is it "easy to swallow" to abandon the religion in which you were raised in order to follow a crucified felon in a hostile environment that had just resulted in the execution of that man?

    I was simply pointing out that Jesus has already answered this question. But apparently wlotter thinks Jesus's answer to this question is an "obtuse comment." Very interesting.

    Wlotter: Secondly think about the statement. Yoke - used to harness oxen together for work, not for a frolick in the field. A modern equivalent would be "Put on these coveralls, work boots and tool belt, and I'll give you rest. So it needs a little more thought, no?

    The statement in Mt. 11:30 is not my promise. It's Jesus's promise, according to Matthew's author. There's no need for me to apologize or explain it. Jesus made the promise, it's up to us to accept it or not.

    Jason Engwer: The Christian life can be easy in some contexts while being difficult in others.

    How is that different from a non-Christian’s life? Some things are easy, and other things are difficult for just about anyone.

    Jason Engwer: The same was true of the Judaism of Peter’s audience.

    Gee, ya think?

    Jason Engwer: The Old Testament often speaks of God’s people as having peace, joy, and other blessings, but it also speaks of suffering in other contexts.

    Do you really think this condition is unique to Christians?

    Jason Engwer: As WLOTTER has explained, the concept of taking a yoke and following Jesus implies the difficulty involved in such work.

    And yet, according to Jesus, it is an “easy” yoke. Right?

    Jason Engwer: Jesus can promise ease in one context without denying that any difficulty will be involved in any sense.

    So what do you think the proper answer to your own question is, Engwer? You ask how easy it is to swallow the new pill. As I pointed out, *if* one accepts the premises (including not only the promises of future rewards, but also the promises of easiness which are expected to temper difficulties and hardships in the meanwhile), it should be pretty easy. But if you want to say it’s not easy, even though Jesus promises it will be, go right ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  10. G'rr_old???,

    (Sorry bout the spelin and the punctuashun. I is but a unrational, ineducted county bumpkin ole Christian.)

    I've said all I need to say.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gerold,

    Except to say thanks for reinforcing Jason' counter-argument.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gerold wrote:

    "How is that different from a non-Christian’s life? Some things are easy, and other things are difficult for just about anyone."

    And since my argument doesn't depend on non-Christians' lives being different in that sense, what's the relevance of your response?

    You write:

    "Do you really think this condition is unique to Christians?"

    No. Again, what's the relevance of your response?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jason, you brought up the issue of the bible saying that the believer's life will have both blessings and difficulties. I simply asked if you think the non-believer's experience in life is any different from this. You have admitted that the believer's experience is not unique. So whether you see the immediate relevance or not, you have answered an important question.

    Now, back to the question: do you think Jesus' yoke is easy, or not? If the Holy Spirit were to move in those whom God wanted to draw to him, what would make it so difficult to accept what Peter was telling them?

    What's your answer? Easy, or not easy?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gerold wrote:

    "Jason, you brought up the issue of the bible saying that the believer's life will have both blessings and difficulties. I simply asked if you think the non-believer's experience in life is any different from this. You have admitted that the believer's experience is not unique. So whether you see the immediate relevance or not, you have answered an important question."

    What the United States should do in Iraq is also "an important question", but it doesn't have much relevance to this thread. Nothing I've argued has suggested that the Christian life is unique in the sense you're addressing. You need to explain what relevance you think this issue has instead of just making a vague reference to how it's "an important question".

    You write:

    "Now, back to the question: do you think Jesus' yoke is easy, or not?"

    Why is that "the question"? And why are you ignoring what I said about the passage earlier?

    You write:

    "If the Holy Spirit were to move in those whom God wanted to draw to him, what would make it so difficult to accept what Peter was telling them?"

    I was originally responding to somebody who denies the existence of the Holy Spirit, and I doubt that you affirm the existence of the Holy Spirit either. Do you?

    But to repeat what I said earlier, the issue isn't just the presence of factors such as Matthew 11 and the work of the Holy Spirit. The issue is also the presence of negative factors such as the ones I mentioned earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I asked: Now, back to the question: do you think Jesus' yoke is easy, or not?

    Jason deflects: Why is that "the question"? And why are you ignoring what I said about the passage earlier?

    Why do you evade my question, Jason? I'll ask one more time: do you think Jesus' yoke is easy, or not?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gerold said:

    "Why do you evade my question, Jason?"

    Given how often you've ignored questions I've asked you, why should I answer your questions?

    But I have answered your question. I've also explained why the answer doesn't have the implications you've suggested it has. WLOTTER answered your question earlier in this thread, and I wrote the following in the next post:

    "As WLOTTER has explained, the concept of taking a yoke and following Jesus implies the difficulty involved in such work. Jesus can promise ease in one context without denying that any difficulty will be involved in any sense."

    I'm not the one who's evading. You are.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jason: "As WLOTTER has explained, the concept of taking a yoke and following Jesus implies the difficulty involved in such work. Jesus can promise ease in one context without denying that any difficulty will be involved in any sense."

    So is it "easy," as Jesus says, or not, as Jason Engwer seems to be saying? Which is it? Should we go with Jason, or with Jesus on this matter?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gerold wrote:

    "So is it 'easy,' as Jesus says, or not, as Jason Engwer seems to be saying? Which is it? Should we go with Jason, or with Jesus on this matter?"

    I reposted what I had said earlier. If what I said earlier tells you what I "seem to be saying", then why did you act as if I hadn't answered your question?

    And why do you continue ignoring questions I've asked you, given your earlier suggestion that I should answer your questions? If I should answer yours, then why do you keep failing to answer mine?

    I've already explained how the Christian life can be easy in one context while being difficult in another. You haven't refuted what I said, but instead have just repeated your unargued assumption that Matthew 11 requires your conclusion.

    So far, you've:

    - Ignored what I told you about Matthew 11 while acting as if I hadn't addressed the passage, only to go on to admit later that I did "seem" to address what you claimed I hadn't.

    - Ignored questions I've asked you while acting as if I shouldn't ignore your questions to me.

    - Repeated a ridiculous interpretation of Matthew 11 without justifying it, even after being corrected repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As I expected, more non-answers from Jason Engwer. I guess it's simply because he's reluctant to commit himself to a clear position.

    ReplyDelete