“Everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.”

Embryo Parson put up a recent blog post that I’ve wanted to share:

The English Reformation and the Early Church Fathers:

“We and our people - thanks be to God - follow no novel and strange religions, but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consentient mind and voice of the most early Fathers.” (Queen Elizabeth I)

I. Justification

Clement of Rome (30-100): “All these (saints of old), therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Source: Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.4. (Discussion of works follows.)

Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (c. 130): “He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

Source: The Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5. (Quote occurs in discussion about the atonement, God’s objective act of “taking on the burden of our iniquities.”)

Justin Martyr (100-165) speaks of “those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death.”

Source: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 13.

St. Irenaeus: “Human beings can be saved from the ancient serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead.”

Source: (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7)

Origen (185-254): “For God is just, and therefore he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.”

Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.

Origen: “A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.”

Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.

Hilary of Poitiers (300-368): “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”

Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 20:7)

Hilary of Poitiers: “It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that sin was forgiven by Him whereas the Law was not able to absolve it, since faith alone justifies.”

Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 9:3)

Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) “A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”[31]

Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is justified solely by faith in Christ.”

Source: Basil, Homily on Humility, 20.3.

It goes on like this for another six or eight feet down the page. It’s a great source of early church citations on the topic of “justification by faith”.

One more:

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.”

- St. Basil the Great (The Morals)

Into and Out of Roman Catholicism

Over at Green Baggins, a commenter named Rooney said:

If a reformed person visits sedevacantist websites like MHFM [“Most Holy Family Monastery”], I think such a person would be hardened more against the current RCC and the chances of converting to the RCC will drop. Reading sedevacantist/traditionalist arguments was one thing that kept me from seriously considering the RCC.

Roman Catholicism has lots of high profile ins-and-outs. Here are just a few of them:

The making of a Presbyterian

At long last we know what makes Carl Trueman tick. Like most important things in life, it comes down to the fairer sex:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/02/a-lesson-learned-from-being-du.php

That was the pivotal event in his theological formation. It’s autobiographical revelations like this that key you in to the man behind the mask.

For instance, we could already surmise why Trueman didn’t go the Anglican route. His proud, working-class roots rebelled against lisping, high-pitched, Eton-tutored clerics whose only raison d’etre is to officiate at royal baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

But now we know why he became a cantankerous Presbyterian churchman who wears suede penny loafers, a cardigan sweater, drives a Volvo, and sings the metrical version of Robert’s Rules of Order–rather than giddy, free-spirited charismatic who takes dictation for the Virgin Mary.

When a win is never a win

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Also, if Rosenberg has the kind of performance that is typical for WLC's ivory tower opponents--viz., an awful one--I predict that Christians will trumpet Craig's amazing victory as if it were some sort of substantive accomplishment, rather than a rhetorical victory.

The fact of the matter is that no atheist philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion advocates scientism, so the fact that an atheistic "scientism-ist" lost a debate on God's existence--assuming Rosenberg did lose--is about as interesting as a theistic young earth creationist losing a debate on evolution vs. creationism.

Just to be clear: I don't have any problem with WLC debating Rosenberg. It's just that Rosenberg's position is not representative of what atheist philosophers of religion argue.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2013/02/must-read-greg-cavins-case-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus/#comment-788295431

It’s typical of atheists to lowball Craig’s debate performances.

i) In order to diminish Craig’s performance, Lowder must diminish Rosenberg. Yet Rosenberg is a well-credentialed philosopher.

Moreover, so what if Rosenberg is unrepresentative? To begin with, has Lowder actually read Rosenberg’s recent book? Would Lowder care to explain why Rosenberg’s understanding of atheism is seriously askew?

ii) In addition, Craig doesn’t just debate garden-variety philosophers. He also debates biologists (Ayala, Wolpert), physicists (Lawrence Krauss, Quentin Smith), chemists (Peter Atkins), cosmologists (Kari Enqvist), as well as philosophers of science (Parsons, Pigliucci).

Considering the fact that those are very technical, specialized fields, and Craig has no advanced degrees in the relevant fields, he’s going into those debates at a tremendous disadvantage. The fact that he can more than hold his own despite that handicap can’t be conveniently chalked up to his superior competence. When amateurs debate experts, and the experts lose, what does that tell you?

This is the forest primeval

This is the forest primeval.  The murmuring pines

and hemlocks,

Bearded with moss, and in garments green, indistinct

in the twilight,

Stand like Druids of eld, with voices sad and prophetic.

The immediate inspiration for this post is a post over at Randal Rauser’s blog. Would God be a trickster if the world is younger than scientific dating techniques posit?

I’ve discussed this issue before, but now I wish to approach it from a different angle. There are people who love the past. Some of them devour read history books. Some of them are nostalgic about their long-lost youth. Some of them love old buildings. They found historical preservation societies to preserve and restore old buildings. They lament the fact that some great old buildings were torn down, to make way for parking lots and shopping malls.

Likewise, there are people who love nature. They love old-growth forests. They found conservation societies to preserve the dwindling remnants of the past. They lobby for state and national parks to preserve scenic sites. They lament the loss of extinct animals like the Irish Elk.

Some people love to restore classic cars to vintage condition. Sometimes these are the cars of their youth. Muscle cars from high school. Cars they used when they were dating. Or sometimes they’re just great looking cars of a bygone era.

We also have movies that painstakingly reconstruct the past. Period architecture. Period attire. CGI is used to recreate ancient Rome or Babylon.

If these people could wave a magic wand, they’d replicate their parts of the past. Replicate particular centuries. Replicate period architecture. Replicate old-growth forest. Replicate the neighborhood where they grew up. Or mix and match their favorite parts of the past.

Suppose they could actually do this. Suppose you had a Dark City scenario in which it was possible to recreate a city in whatever style you wanted. Instant Venice. Or maybe your old neighborhood.

Suppose somebody else comes along and makes the “shocking” discovery that your past surroundings aren’t the real past. By dating trees and building materials, they produce evidence that the old-grown forest is fake. The period architecture is fake. It looks older than it really is. It appears to 1963 redux, but it’s really 2013! They accuse you of fraud.

Suppose I respond to you by saying, “It’s none of your business. I didn’t do it to please you. I didn’t do it this way for your benefit. I did it for me, not for you. I don’t like the present. I like the past better than the present. I’d rather drive a 1964 Mustang convertible.”

Self-worship

Why I Love and Worship God

February 3, 2013 By rogereolson

Often I’m tempted to think one of the most basic differences between me and some fellow Christians is why we love and worship God.

I love and worship God because of Jesus.

Pietist leader Nicholas Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf once said that if it weren’t for Jesus he wouldn’t believe in God. I wouldn’t go quite that far. I think there is enough evidence for a supreme being, an intelligent designer and creator of the universe, that I would believe in God even if I did not know Jesus.

However, if I did not know Jesus, I would not love or worship God.

Even very conservative evangelical theologians have said that saints of God before Jesus loved and worshiped Yahweh because of the promise of a Savior—the Suffering Servant God would sent to redeem them. Even then, through the prophets, they had an intimation of Jesus. God’s “steadfast love” was their rock for loving and worshiping him.

If you ask me whether I would love and worship God if I had never heard of Jesus I can’t answer you. Can you answer such a question?

So, I embrace my Calvinist brothers and sisters while grieving for their profound confusion and distorted images of God and Jesus. Of course, they (at best) do the same with me.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/why-i-love-and-worship-god/

A glaring problem with Olson’s position is that revelation is progressive. He alludes to Isaiah, but what about an ordinary Jew living in the time of Abraham, Moses, or David? They had far less Messianic prophecy to go on.

Does Olson think God is unworthy of our love and worship unless we had the Gospels or the NT? If we were Jews living in the time of Moses, if all we had was the Pentateuch, would Olson regard Yahweh as unworthy of worship? Clearly you don’t know nearly as much about Jesus from the Pentateuch (or even the Psalter) as you do from the Gospels.

You can also learn a lot about Christ from Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, &c. However, that’s somewhat abstract compared to the biographical immediacy of the Gospels.

Olson keeps dictating to God the terms under which Olson is prepared to accept God. What about the terms under which God is prepared to accept Olson?

In Scripture, the question isn’t whether God is worthy of us, but whether we are worthy of God. That problematic is resolved that the cross. We are unworthy, but Christ is worthy, and his worthiness supersedes our unworthiness.

But Olson’s Arminian theology has it upside down. He constantly acts as if he’s interviewing God for a job. God is the applicant. Olson defines grace, not as God’s unmerited favor to sinners, but whether God merits our favor.

In Christian theology, God is the judge, while we are the accused. But in Olson’s theology, Olson is the judge, while God is the accused. God must acquit himself in the eyes of Olson. Olson will be in for rude shock if he finds out the hard way that God can get along just fine without Olson’s approval.

“Dung in their faces”: “All the dignity which ye pretend shall be abolished”

Roman Catholics have a few “end-of-the-line” kinds of positions. Fallback positions they take when all of their other “oh yeah, but what about this” objections fail.

One of these is “Sola Scriptura isn’t in the Bible”. Another is an appeal to Augustine’s writings vs the Donatists, as if the Reformers were somehow equivalent to the Donatists. But this appeal is shown to be spurious in the Reformed Confessions as well as in Calvin’s own writings.


First, the 2nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter 17 notes:

We, therefore, call this Church catholic because it is universal, scattered through all parts of the world, and extended unto all times, and is not limited to any times or places. Therefore, we condemn the Donatists who confined the Church to I know not what corners of Africa. Nor do we approve of the Roman clergy who have recently passed off only the Roman Church as catholic.

For the Reformed, there is an equal condemnation of the Donatist errors and the claims of exclusivity of the Roman hierarchy. As seen further in Chapter 18:

Jesus With Long Hair

A common objection to the Shroud of Turin is that the hair on the man in the Shroud is too long to be Jesus' hair. Biblical passages like 1 Corinthians 11:14 are cited as evidence that Jesus wouldn't have had hair so long. And the issue of acceptable hair length is relevant in other contexts (how long we can let our hair grow today, the quality of artistic depictions of Jesus and other Biblical figures, etc.).

Stop-work order

(Scene: heavenly throne room)

The Omnipotent: Gabriel.

Gabriel: Yes, milord.

The Omnipotent: I see that Zerubbabel is jumping the gun.

Gabriel: What do you mean?

The Omnipotent: He’s laying the foundation for the Millennial temple.

Gabriel: I’m confused. Didn’t Zekiel furnish the blueprint for a physical temple?

The Omnipotent: Yes, but Ezekiel bungled the prophecy by failing to distinguish between the second temple and the third temple! We can’t have Zerubbabel build the third temple even before the second temple has been built and destroyed by the Romans.

That would make the second temple the third temple–or is it the other way round?–which is just plain bad arithmetic, not to mention bad eschatology. If the Romans destroy the third temple in 70 AD, the countdown to Armageddon will kick in way too soon. I already had to reset the eschatological stopwatch once before when Ezra and Nehemiah jumped the gun by laying the cornerstone for the Millennial temple. I scotched that in the nick of time.

Gabriel: Now I understand.

The Omnipotent: Go down there, ASAP, and present a stop-work order to Zerubbabel. While you’re at it, give copies of the injunction to Haggai, and Zechariah.

–which reminds me…Michael.

Michael: Yes, milord

The Omnipotent: Accompany Gabriel. Take along a wrecking crew to pulverize the foundations that Zerubbabel prematurely laid, using Ezekiel’s blueprint.

Michael: Will do.

Evidence of nonevents

Adam Omelianchuk

I share your point about the culpability of "lying," because to lie is to know the truth and intentionally mislead an inquirer. But, as I've said elsewhere, the young-earth view is committed to a whimsical ontology replete with baffling supernatural acts that yield curious results. For example, gamma ray bursts that would normally travel billions of light years to reach us are thought to be created in transit, yet still providing evidence of events that never occurred. The same is true of supernovas the collisions of galaxies, and stars being sucked into black holes. When you have evidence of events that never occurred, you have something awfully strange on your hands.

http://randalrauser.com/2013/02/would-god-be-lying-if-he-created-the-world-with-apparent-age/#comment-787003000

Let’s consider some potential counterexamples:

i) The general principle underlying Omelianchuk’s objection seems to be the disconnect between effects and secondary causes. You have an effect which would normally be the result of a secondary cause, but in this case there is no secondary cause corresponding to the effect.

An obvious problem with his objection is that it rules out creation ex nihilo, as well as miracles that bypass second causes.

ii) For instance, since humans normally have two biological parents, the existence of Adam and Eve would be evidence of a nonevent, for they didn’t have parents.

Likewise, the existence of Jesus is evidence of a nonevent: a father impregnating a mother.

ii) Or take the multiplication of the loaves and fish. The instant bread is evidence of a nonevent: sowing grains of wheat, germination, sun and rain, ears of wheat, harvesting, threshing, baking bread with water, flower, and fire,

Likewise, the instant fish are evidence of a nonevent: insemination, laying eggs, maturation.

I don’t know if Omelianchuk subscribes to theistic evolution. If so, then instant fish are evidence of a nonevent: an age-long evolutionary process resulting in fish.

iii) Omelianchuk’s principle rules out progressive creation as well as fiat creation, for, according to progressive creationism, God introduces new natural kinds by direct intervention. Effects without secondary causes.

iv) To consider this from a different angle:

10 Then David said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O Lord, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition (1 Sam 23:10-13).

Here David is choosing what to do in light of a nonevent: if David remains in Keilah, the citizens will turn him over to Saul. So he leaves before that eventuality plays out. God gives David evidence of a nonevent: what would happen to him if he took that fork in the road, as a result of which he turns that hypothetical into a nonevent by pursing an alternate course of action.

v) What about praying for a past event? Suppose you apply to college. Suppose you receive a letter in the mail. Before you open the envelope, you pray about it.

Of course, at the time the letter was mailed, the admissions office had already decided to accept or deny your application. If God answers your prayer, your prayer may affect the past, rendering the alternative a nonevent.

A Literal "Temple" (Naos) in 2 Thessalonians 2:4

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2:3–4 ESV)

I want to make some comments on this verse that support a literal temple interpretation.

First, it is often assumed by some interpreters that a colossal Solomonic-like temple complex must be rebuilt. This is not the case, because the term for temple in this verse is naos, which does not require the meaning of a large temple-complex; instead, it can refer to just a tent-like structure or the inner sanctuary, a structure that could evidently be erected in a matter of weeks. Just one hundred years ago it would have been difficult to fathom a reconstituted state of Israel back in their land, nevertheless, it did happen in 1948 in God’s providential purposes. So that historical event should serve as confidence when we read that there will be a future temple. With God all things are possible, however difficult it may be to imagine that Jews would be allowed to build a temple within Islam’s exclusive presence on the Temple Mount. Perhaps a peace accord between Israel and Muslims will permit orthodox Jews to build a tent-like temple sanctuary beside, or even upon, the Temple Mount. However it will materialize, I accept the plain reading of Scripture that there will one day be a literal temple structure, and when the man of lawlessness is revealed he will appropriate the temple for his own blasphemous glory.

Second, rather than taking “God’s temple” in its normal, natural, customary sense, historicist interpreters deny Paul intends a literal future temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Historicism claims Paul’s use of “temple” refers metaphorically to the church since Paul elsewhere uses “temple” for the church. This is mistaken for the following reasons: (1) This commits the corpus-lexical fallacy. Not too mention that Paul actually does use the term (through Luke) in a literal sense in a sermon in Acts. But all that is irrelevant to the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:4. (2) It imposes a foreign context upon the target text. They have to go outside of the immediate context to attempt to make their case. That is because there are no lexical, grammatical, historical, contextual elements that supports a metaphorical interpretation.

The “church” interpretation is weak and lacks support given the additional arguments.

Colin R. Nicholl gives good reasons showing that Paul has in mind a literal temple:

(1) since the author is contradicting the false eschatological claim of 2:2c, we would expect a concrete, observable and conspicuous event.

(2) the use of kathisai [“takes his seat”] seems more naturally to suggest a literal, physical temple.

(3) the definite articles clearly allude to a particular temple of the true God, which can only refer to the Jerusalem temple.

(4) the immediately preceding reference to sebasma [“object of worship”] favours a material temple.”

(From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 126 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 232–33, n. 34.)

Daniel Wallace provides additional reasons:

“It seems that by 63 CE (the date I would assign to 1 Timothy), the idiom [“God’s temple”] had shifted in Christian usage sufficiently that a metaphorical nuance had become the norm. However, it is equally significant that all of the references in the Corinthian correspondence seem to require an explanation (readily supplied by Paul) in order to make the metaphorical sense clear. Thus, for Paul at least, one might chart his development as follows: 50 CE—literal notion is still in view (2 Thess 2:4). Mid-50s—metaphorical notion is developed, but the shift has to be made explicit. 60s—metaphorical notion is clearly in place, requiring no explicit referential clue for this meaning. To sum up the evidence so far: it’s not that 2 Thess 2:4 cannot have the metaphorical notion in view, but rather that on a trajectory of Pauline thought such a possibility seems less likely than a literal temple.”

http://bible.org/article/“temple-god”-2-thessalonians-24-literal-or-metaphorical (accessed 3/11/2012).

Finally, Gene L. Green, despite his interpretation that this is a reference to a literal temple in Thessalonica and not Jerusalem, makes an excellent point militating against a metaphorical sense of the temple being “the church.” He writes, “[T]he orientation of the divine claims of the “man of lawlessness” is toward the world at large and not the church.” The Letters to the Thessalonians, 312, emphasis mine.

For more exegesis on this issue and related subjects see here.

 

Will there be a third temple?

Chafer DTS

Rule of Interpretation of the Scriptures:

2 ) Interpret what is implied by what is specifically taught in Scripture.

I do.

3 ) Interpret the Scriptures in it's historical context.

I do.

4 ) Check your findings by comparing it to Commentators of the Scriptures and consult Old Testement Hebrew and New Testement Greek Scholars.

I do.

1 ) Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative, or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.

Really? Taking the Bible literally where that’s at all possible is a rule of interpretation? Who invented that rule? I don’t remember signing that contract. But let’s play by your rule.

i) Jesus is literally a grape vine (Jn 15). After all, if it’s possible for the Son to become a man, it’s possible for the Son to become a grape vine.

ii) Jesus has a literal sword for a tongue (Rev 1:16). After all, Jesus has the power to turn his tongue into a sword.

iii) God will turn Christians into literal pillars (Rev 3:12). After all, it’s possible for God Almighty to turn a man into a marble column.

iv) Jesus is literally a lamb (Rev 5:6). After all, if Jesus can become a man, he can become a lamb.

v) An angel will take burning coals from the altar of a temple floating in the sky, and throw them over the edge, where they rain down on the earth (Rev 8:3-5). After all, it’s possible for the Omnipotent to make it happen exactly as described.

vi) God will create a giant woman and stick her somewhere in the sky. God will also create a physical dragon and stick him somewhere in the sky (Rev 12:1-3). After all, it’s possible for God Almighty to do that.

vii) God will create a physical dragon, whom he will shackle with a physical chain, and confine, under literal lock and seal, to a subterranean dungeon (Rev 20:1-3). After all, it’s possible for the Omnipotent to do that.

We don’t want to be like those skeptical, rationalistic amils.

Yet when it comes to passages like Ezek 40-48 and other passages concerning the millennial reign of Christ on the earth in OT prophecy Dr. Charles Hodge wrote…

One of your problems is that you rely on canned objections to amillennialism. Attacking Charles Hodge is not a substitute for refuting my arguments. I’m not Charles Hodge.

BTW, it makes no more sense to attack amillennialism in the person of Hodge than it does to attack dispensationalism in the person of Darby, Kelly, Tregelles, Bullinger, Scofield, or Chafer,  &c. You need to break out of your timewarp. If you’re going to attack amillennial writers, you need to focus your fire the most astute contemporary representatives, viz. Beale, Poythress, Robertson.

Moreover, amils aren’t limited to Calvinists. You have Lutheran commentators to deal with (e.g. Andrew Steinmann, Horace Hummel).

In otherwords, your own preconcieved theology dicates to you on when to follow the literal interpretation when if carried out contradicts your own subjective ideas. This is clearly seen that Dr. Charles Hodge…

Once again, you’re doing a bait-and-switch, where you accuse me of something, then quote Charles Hodge. You’re a lazy critic.

BTW, wasn’t Hodge postmil rather than amil?

I follow the literal interpretation based on the fact that Ezek is written in human language and is intended to be read and understood by the people of God as a means of communicating with us what he wants us to know in the same manner of which I read Genesis 1 to 2 on the account of creation. Simple human language as properly defined.

The parables of Jesus were written in human language and intended to be read and understood by God’s people. Does that mean you take the parable of the wise and foolish virgins literally?

The best way to settle this issue is through a verse by verse detailed exegesis of Ezek 40 to 48.

Actually, that’s not the best way. For you must make a preliminary decision regarding the genre. Interpreting particular verses about rooms in the temple doesn’t tell you how that description is meant to map onto a real-world setting.

 In Ezek. 40:5 for example he claims to have seen a temple are and yet you and Amillennialist tell us that Ezekial did not.

You’re making no effort to respond to my actual argument. You impute to me things I haven’t said.

Yes, he saw a temple. Notice that he didn’t see a future temple. He didn’t see a work in progress. He saw an extant temple.

 If he saw it then all of this has meaning of the information we are being told through out it. Basically you and Amillennialist are not telling anyone on what all these verses are teaching or telling us. Thus no real exegesis is being given.

You suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance. Amil commentators like Daniel Block and Horace Hummel have written detailed, verse-by-verse commentaries this section.

We are only told its symbolic of the church and nothing of the specific details even though it has alot of it.

Once again, you’re making assumptions about my position rather than bothering to study what I’ve actually said, much less rebut my arguments.

By the way, I am studied in church history. After all I have read and studied the early church father writings and also church history works such as HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 8 Volumes by Philp Schaff in book form. Steve do you hold to baptismal regeneration like several early church father who cited John 3 as teaching it ? Well if you dont why not since they taught it ? You see while they taught that error it is still incorrect as John 3 does not teach baptismal regeneration regardless of the fact that baptismal regeneration is the most early recorded view of John 3. We must allow the church or the people of God to formulate theologically mature conclusions on doctrines regardless of how long it takes in church history for it to happen as long as it is biblically based on proper exegesis.

You’re attacking an argument I never used. You’re a lazy critic.

First, the OT prophecy made no specific mention of the period of time between the first and 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. Old Testament prophecy had the fact that Jesus was to die on the cross and a future kingdom reign of Christ in Israel over the whole earth and that gentiles during it would be blessed along with Israel. Basically God's present work in the dispensation of the grace of God is not predicted in the Old Testament. God kept this knowledge of it to himself until it was revealed to the apostles , NT prophets and Paul based on Eph. 3:1-6. This is disclosed new information given to them that was hidden in the Old Testament.

i) Even if we grant your tendentious assertions for the sake of argument, you’re admitting that dispensationalists have to interpret OT prophecy in light of NT prophecy. Yet they castigate amils for doing the very same thing.

ii) But let’s play along with your argument. What does the NT say about the temple? What’s the timetable? Take this passage:

…who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thes 2:4).

Dispensationalists think that has reference to a third temple-Ezekiel’s “millennial” temple. Yet at the time of writing (c. 50 AD), the second temple was still intact. There was already an extant, functioning temple in Jerusalem. And it would remain so for another 20 years.

How would the Thessalonians be in any position to realize that Paul was actually referring to a third temple, a future temple, when the second temple was still a very present reality? (There are, of course, alternative identifications, viz. Beale, Green.)

 The premillennial position teaches that Satan is not presently binded at all but will be during the millennial reign of christ on the earth which starts after the second coming of Christ ( Matt. 25:31-34; Rev. 20:1-3 ) .

Tell me something I don’t already know.

 Binding and loosing is related to the preaching of the Gospel to the lost done by Peter and the apostles ( Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 2 ) . There is no binding of looseing of Satan in those words anywhere at all. It strictly speaking is the opening of the preaching of the Gospels to the Jews and then later on to the gentiles in the book of Acts.

It’s fallacious to interpret the binding/loosing of Satan in Rev 20 in terms of Mt 16.

Satan is very active in the world today. Satan blinds all the unregenerate to the Gospel and tempts Christians today to sin and uses false teachers to preach another gospel and so forth. Far from Satan being bounded on the cross Satan is VERY active. Did Total Depravity suddenly cease as a result of the cross ? I dont think so.

You’re raising stock objections I already dealt with. I’ve presented my interpretation of Rev 20:1-12. You’re a lazy critic who recites 3x5 cards rather than dealing with the actual state of the argument.

 The premillennial position holds that the temple will be build during the Millennial Kingdom reign of Christ on the earth and not during the church age.

Tell me something I don’t already know.

 Steve are you trying to use the " historical argument " by your statement " your own position in church history " ? If you are commiting a logical fallacy . I am sure you must know that.

Once again, instead of acquainting yourself with my actual position and supporting arguments, you burn a straw man.

Even so I like many of the early church fathers held to a millennial kingdom reign of Christ on the earth for 1,000 years in contrast to many of the Reformers who held to Amillennialism and in general historicalism. Steve the fact is the Old Testament when still being written at the time Ezek was written.

What a surprise.

 Daniel was aware of that book and of each other. Ezek did have Isa and Daniel and would therefore be away of a future reign of the Messiah on the earth. What a person would know is that when it was written that Ezek 40-48 was in the future in which the Messiah would be with them physically in Israel in the temple and performing animal sacrifices. They also know this temple had NOT YET been built at all.

Future in reference to whom? There wasn’t even a second temple at the time Ezekiel delivered chaps 40-48. Yet you’re leaping over a second temple, and imagining a third temple–as if Ezekiel’s contemporaries understood him to be referring to a third temple, long after the second temple had been leveled, even before a second temple had been built to replace Solomon’s temple. That defies the historical context. At the time of writing, the second temple lay in the future. You are postulating a future temple after a future temple!

Not unless there was errors regarding to it's measurements of which are stated in those chapters and the division of the land to the people.

There’s another option: errors regarding the dispensational interpretation.

Also based on history we see this temple stated in Ezek 40 to 48 has never been built at all.

So by your own admission, dispensationalists must abandon the historical context. The interpretation is massively confused, as you careen back and forth between the prospective viewpoint of 6C BC Jews and the retrospective viewpoint of 21C AD Christians.

Is It Sinful To Produce Or Want Evidence Like The Shroud Of Turin?

Here's something I wrote in another thread, in response to somebody who cited John 20:29 against my view of the Shroud of Turin:

Far too little, far too late

From the “making-the-first-steps-to-close-the-barn-door-after-the-horses-have-been-out-for-decades” department:

Here is what that is all about:

Rome is a dialog partner that is not to be trusted

In a post entitled “Of Catholicity and Confusion”, Scott Clark reports on a USCCB (US Catholic Conference of Bishops) agreement “with representatives from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ to accept as valid baptisms performed in those communions”, through the aid of what he calls “the mediating/hosting organization, Christian Churches Together.”

This is a non-event for a lot of reasons, and Clark nails it at the end:

So, this heralded breakthrough does not seem to be much of a breakthrough at all. It probably has the same status in Rome as Evangelicals and Catholics Together: none.

On the other side, news of the “agreement” prompted Bryan Cross to post the pithily-titled article, “Catholic Church and Four Reformed Denominations Agree to Recognize the Validity of Each Other’s Baptisms.”

And this he posted right at the top of his regular front-page feature, “Christian Unity in the News”. [Most of the artciles in this list refer to a Roman overture to wayward Anglican churches entitled Anglicanorum Coetibus, a program by which Anglicans are snookered into believing that they can find “unity” with Roman Catholicism, while still retaining their Anglican identity. More on this below]

But it is a non-event. Generally, Reformed denominations have not required Roman Catholics joining Reformed churches to be re-baptized [and Clark cites Berkhof to this effect], and nor has the Roman Catholic church required baptized Reformed individuals converting to Rome to be rebaptized. Citing CCC §1271:

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

It brings up the larger question, “why bother trying to do business with the Roman Catholic Church, in any event.

Again, Clark correctly identifies the useless nature of the USCCB: “it is not entirely clear what the status of the USCCB actually is in Rome. For American evangelicals, any organization that gathers and says something may have significance but in my ecclesiastical world, an informal gathering of pastors that produces a statement has the ecclesiastical weight of the pixels by which it appears.”

But further to that, if these [Reformed] folks did get a chance to negotiate with anyone significant in Rome, it’s pretty clear that they’d end up with the bitter taste of dust in their mouths.

In recent years, there have been a number of these “from-the-ground-up” types of agreements, such as the ECT series, the “Joint Declaration” with [some] Lutherans on Justification, and so on.

While some of these “breakthroughs” get reported, the real substance is that, negotiation with Rome will get you nowhere.

For example, one of the biggest proponents of our time, of trying to get “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”, wrote with genuine disappointment at Rome’s failure to endorse the “Joint Declaration”. He wrote in an article entitled Setback in Rome:

In June the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) formally approved a “Joint Declaration” (JD) on the doctrine of justification that had been worked out over many years of theological dialogue with the Catholic Church. Shortly after that, Rome made its official response in a joint statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (CCU). These developments received considerable play in the general media with stories about an “historic agreement” on the chief doctrine that had separated Lutherans and Catholics for almost five hundred years. The reality is somewhat more complicated than that.

Rome did officially “receive” JD in the sense that it affirmed that very significant progress had been made in removing past misunderstandings, and in moving toward full agreement on what it means to say that the sinner is justified by faith. However, many of the Catholics and Lutherans involved in producing JD are saying—mainly off the record, for the present—that the Roman response is, in the most important respects, a rejection of the declaration. JD proposed that, with the new understandings achieved by the dialogue, the mutual condemnations of the sixteenth century no longer apply, and remaining differences over the doctrine of justification are not church-dividing. The Roman statement does not accept that proposal.

It would be an understatement to say that the theologians involved in the dialogue, both Lutheran and Catholic, were taken aback by the Roman response. During the process, Rome had indicated problems with aspects of the declaration and, almost up to the last minute, revisions were made to take those concerns into account. The participants in the dialogue thought they had been assured that JD would be approved by Rome. Certainly that was the understanding that informed the LWF's approval of the declaration. In the immediate aftermath of the statement by CDF and CCU, the mood among dialogue participants was bitter and despondent. One Lutheran pioneer of the dialogue declared that the theologians, both Lutheran and Catholic, had been “betrayed” by Rome. For decades to come, he predicted, it would be impossible to reestablish confidence in any theological dialogue with the Catholic Church.

I’ve bolded key sections from Neuhaus. Rome will smile and nod, and smile and nod, and just when you think that some agreement has been reached, they say “no, it’s our way or the highway”, and you get to experience the bitterness of “buyer’s remorse”.

Fr. Robert Hart, an writer for Touchstone Magazine and at the blog The Continuum (referring to a “continuum” of Anglicans whose efforts revolve around “continuing” to understand and hold the doctrines of the historical Church of England), wrote in a characteristically “uncharitable” blog post entitled Baiticum and Switchorum (That’s “Bait-and-Switch” for those who don’t understand Latin):

"What this means for the average small [Anglican] parish thinking of accepting the offer is that the entire parish will no longer have autonomy.

*[you] will begin Roman catechism for 2 years, [your] clergy will step down and become laymen and will have to complete their education if lacking before being able to serve anyone; your buildings, if any, will need to be disposed of.

*you will be directed to a local RC Diocese since ours are far flung and overlapping many RC dioceses in between.

*you will likely be directed to a local RC parish (100 families is the minimum standard for a RC parish) for worship in the early am.

* you will be somewhat segregated from the RC congregation.

* your priest if he can pass muster will be counted on to do Vatican II services as directed by the local Bishop (so don't count on the level of pastoral care you had before.)

*your children will learn Roman Catholicism, you will die, the Roman Church will go on as before and that will be the end of that….

Let us be clear. Unlike the "uniates" and "rites," former Anglicans will not have their own church within the Church. They will be absorbed, but with permission to use something different, but as of yet undefined.

Rome=”The Borg”. Lots of folks don’t yet know this, however.

Extraordinary E.T.s require extraordinary evidence

Atheists raise three objections to the argument from religious experience:

1. The Logical Gap Objection: We have to distinguish the experience and the subjective conviction it produces from the objectivity (or veridicality) of the experience, for example, a very “real” hallucination or dream is a live possibility. The critics, such as Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre,20 admit that religious experiences often produce subjective certitude in the subjects. However, it does not follow that the experience is objectively certain. In other words, there is a logical gap between the psychological data and the ontological claim of the religious experiences. To bridge the gap, we need independent certification of the religious belief. For example, Flew challenges the defenders of religious experiences to answer this basic question: How and when would we be justified in making inferences from the facts of the occurrence of religious experience, considered as a purely psychological phenomenon, to conclusions about the supposed objective religious truths?21

2. The Theory-Ladenness Objection: The religious experiences are heavily (or even entirely) shaped by the conceptual framework of the experients. Hence they are not useful as evidence for ontological claims.22

3. The Privacy Objection: According to Rem Edwards, “the foremost accusation leveled at the mystics is that mystical experiences are private, like hallucinations, illusions, and dreams, and that like these ‘nonveridical’ experiences, religious experience is really of no noetic significance at all.”23

Kai-man Kwan “Can Religious Experience Provide Justification for the Belief in God? The Debate in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy,” Philosophy Compass1/6 (2006).

Carl Sagan was famous for his deceptively simple adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” However, Sagan was also deeply invested in the quest for E.T.s. One reflection of that quest was his promotion of S.E.T.I.

But he also wrote a novel which was later turned into a movie: Contact. Here’s a summary of the novel’s climactic scene:

The Machine is activated, and the five of them are shot into a wormhole. They are shot in a kind of cosmic mass transit system, viewing all sorts of star systems (one of which is Vega) and end near the center of the galaxy, where a large docking station awaits.

The five envoys to the galaxy find themselves on what appears to be an Earth beach. While the others explore, Ellie stays behind on the beach. Waiting for a welcome from the extraterrestrials, she instead receives a welcome from someone in her childhood: her father, Theodore. Only it is not her father, but one of the intelligent beings who is hoping to make Ellie at ease. Ellie asks as many questions of the alien as she can, and discovers that there is a long-lost species who has created the tunnels she and her companions traveled through, as well as the strong possibility of a Creator of the universe. Ellie's father suggests that she look at the number pi for a signature.

When the five ambassadors to space return, they are told that they went nowhere and were only out of contact for about twenty seconds. They claim that they have been gone for about eighteen hours, but they have no evidence, as Ellie's camera has recorded only silence. Ellie is accused first of delusions, but later of helping to perpetrate a hoax. She is unable to prove her story, and thus many people are unconvinced. However, there are still many who believe her, including Palmer Joss. There is one bit of evidence to back Eleanor's story up: her camera may have only recorded static, but it recorded eighteen hours of static, not twenty seconds.

http://academic.depauw.edu/aevans_web/HONR101-02/WebPages/Fall%202007/Craig/Contact%20Website/Pages/movie.html

What’s striking about this is how Ellie’s first contact parallels the argument from religious experience. It falls prey to the same secular objections. 

1. The Logical Gap Objection: We must distinguish the ostensible experience and the subjective conviction it produces from the objectivity (or veridicality) of the experience, for example, a very “real” hallucination or dream is a live possibility. Ellie’s experience produced subjective certitude in the reality of first contact. However, it does not follow that the experience is objectively certain. In other words, there is a logical gap between the psychological data and the ontological claim of first contact. To bridge the gap, we need independent confirmation of the E.T. belief. Unfortunately for her, Ellie’s camera didn’t record the alleged encounter. It only recorded static. Moreover, by objective metrics, she was only incommunicado for 20 seconds–far shorter than the duration of the alleged encounter. How would Ellie be justified in making inferences from the facts of the occurrence of E.T experience, considered as a purely psychological phenomenon, to conclusions about the supposed objective existence of E.T.s? Much less how would second parties be justified in drawing that inference?

2. The Theory-Ladenness Objection: The ostensible first contact experience was entirely shaped by the conceptual framework of the alleged alien: an earthly beach, Ellie’s father. Hence this isn’t useful as evidence for ontological claims about E.T.s.

3. The Privacy Objection: Since Ellie’s camera only recorded static, all we have to go by is her private recollection of the ostensible encounter. But that makes it indistinguishable from other inveridical experiences, like hallucinations, illusions, and dreams. Hence her first contact experience is really of no noetic significance at all.

Although the example is fictitious, this is Sagan’s own example. Does Sagan think the character of Ellie was justified in believing that she made first contact with real E.T.s? Does Sagan think readers of his novel or viewers of the cinematic adaptation should conclude that Ellie was justified in her belief? Is the narrative viewpoint of his novel consonant with his rules of evidence in assessing religious claims?

NDEs and the argument from religious experience

I’m going to discuss some objections to NDEs (and OBEs). 

I. Theological objections

 

i) One objection is that it’s illegitimate to use extrabiblical information to make a case for postmortem survival.

In response, I’d say that depends.

a) It would be improper to cultivate NDE or OBE type experiences as a way of discovering the reality of an afterlife. That’s like dabbling in the occult.

On the other hand, if an unsolicited experience simply happens to you, there’s nothing wrong with assessing the evidential value, if any, or logical implications, if any, of your experience. Same thing with evaluating the reported experience of others.

b) We rely on extrabiblical information for many things we believe in. We also use extrabiblical information to help interpret the Bible or to defend the Bible. Although justified belief in Scripture is not dependent on corroborative evidence, God made the world as well as the Word. Providence is a divine source of information. The world is a divinely created object of knowledge. History is a divinely guided object of knowledge.

It would be wrong to test biblical claims by other sources of information, but we can supplement our knowledge from other sources, as long as Scripture remains the standard.

ii) Another objection is that the content of reported NDEs (and OBEs) is sometimes unorthodox. I’ll have more to say about that momentarily, but for now I’d like to draw a quick distinction:

a) If the Bible teaches dualism, if the Bible teaches the survival of consciousness (i.e. the intermediate state), then we’d expect “decedents” to have a postmortem experience. When they “die,” it doesn’t go black. When they “die,” their mind (soul, consciousness) is detached from the body. Their experience is no longer filtered through their body.

Seems to me that Christian anthropology predicts for something like NDEs or OBEs when the conditions are right. When patients talk about “popping out” of their bodies, isn’t that consistent with traditional Christian anthropology? Indeed, isn’t that implicit in traditional Christian anthropology?

b) That’s distinct from what specifically they saw or heard, thought they saw or heard, or say they saw or heard.

c) I’ve put some terms in scare quotes, for we’re dealing with borderline conditions. Technical, medical definitions of “death.”

There’s nothing in Christian anthropology that precludes resuscitation.  Christian anthropology doesn’t say you can’t temporarily “die,” and be resuscitated a few minutes later. There may well be a transitional stage between expiration and the afterlife, before the vital organs become too damaged, where it’s possible to go either way. Before death becomes irreversible. And in that state, it may be possible to perceive both worlds. I don’t see that Scripture rules that out.

In fact, Scripture itself records some miraculous resuscitations (e.g. 1 Kgs 17:17-21; 2 Kgs 4:18-35; Mt 9:18-25; Acts 20:9-10). This suggests that, to some degree, life and death lie along a continuum. Depending on how long they were dead and the degree of necrosis, miraculous resuscitation would involve healing the body as well as reuniting body and soul.

By the same token, it may be that up to a certain point, medical science can revive people who, in the past, could only be resuscitated by a miracle. Of course, someone like Lazarus would fall beyond the threshold of medical resuscitation.

Likewise, visionary revelation is sometimes depicted in OBE terms. That sensation may be phenomenological, or it may be metaphysical. We can’t rule out the latter.

II. Philosophical objections

Philosophical objections to NDEs and OBEs parallel philosophical objections to the argument from religious experience. These are summarized by Kai-Man Kwan. Cf. “The argument from religious experience,” The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland, eds. (Wiley-Blackwell 2012), 503-07. I’m going to adapt those objections to NDEs and OBEs, then respond:

i) There’s a logical gap between an objective experience and the subjective conviction that produces. Take a hallucination. So we need independent corroboration to prove that our psychological experience (e.g. NDE or OBE) corresponds to an extramental reality. Put another way, we need that external check to establish the veridicality of the NDE or OBE.

But that argument either proves too much or too little. For that parallels sensory perception. There’s a logical gap between what we perceive, and what there is. Take a hallucination.

ii) There’s the theory-ladenness objection. How subjects interpret their NDEs or OBEs is, to some extent, culturally conditioned by their varied religious background, or lack thereof. So the experience lacks objective content.

But that argument either proves too much or too little. Once again, sensory perception is also theory-laden. To take some examples:

a) If I see the back of somebody’s head, I infer that that’s a human being. I assume the person has a face. A front, as well as a back, although I can only see them from behind. Of course, it could be a cardboard cutout.

b) I’ve read that when “primitive” jungle tribes are shown photographs for the first time, they can’t recognize what those 2D images stand for. When we look at photographs, we perceive more than we see. We perceive 3D objects. We subconsciously grasp the representational character of the images. 

c) Suppose I hear four successive tones. I look around for the source of the tones. I see a clock tower. I conclude that it’s four o’clock.

I didn’t see the tones emitted from the clock tower. The tones are invisible. I didn’t even hear the tones coming directly from the clock tower. It’s not like there’s a series of dots leading straight from the clock tower to my ear. My hearing is more diffuse.

Rather, I associate the tones with the clock tower. I know from experience that it’s the only object in the vicinity which could produce that sound.

Likewise, I didn’t actually hear the clock strike four o’clock. All I really heard was one tone after another. Four tones in a row.

But I’ve conditioned to interpret that as code language for the time of day. If you didn’t belong to a culture with grandfather clocks, and other suchlike, you wouldn’t perceive the same auditory event.

Although NDEs and OBEs are theory-laden, so is ordinary sensory perception. We’re so used to unconsciously interpreting sensory input that we’re generally unaware of how much our conceptual framework is constructing what we perceive.

d) By analogy, NDEs and OBEs could be objective events, even though the experience is in some measure observer-relative. The perception could be unorthodox even though the core experience is orthodox. A misimpression.

iii) There’s the privacy objection. Like dreams and hallucinations, NDEs and OBEs reflect privileged access. An outside observer isn’t privy to your reported experience.

But this argument either proves too much or too little. To paraphrase Kwan:

In what sense is a sensory experience public? My experience of a chair occurs essentially in my mind–it is every bit as private as other experiences in this aspect. I cannot directly experience how you experience the chair and vice versa. What makes a sensory experience public is that verbal reports of different persons can be compared. However, reported NDEs and OBEs can also be compared.

Dr Robert Godfrey: The Inventions of Roman Catholicism

I was suprised at the not-so-kind, but honest language he uses throughout. There's about 11 minutes of video here:

“Comments Unapproved”

This is a public service announcement on behalf of our would-be Christian brethren at Called to Communion:

They asked, and they asked, and they even lectured me in a mighty firm way.

However, insofar as your responses are tangential to the original post, they will not be approved.

Even in the event that the analysis you provide of what is, in history, the only ex cathedra, papally-defined instance of “divine revelation” vis-à-vis the Protestant’s mere human opinion.

Pet mania

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/animal-planet-pets-outnumber-children-4-1-america_699157.html