The right to bear arms

I’m not going to discuss the legalities of gun ownership or gun control. Instead, I’m going to make a point about their underlying philosophies.

For conservatives, the right to bear arms is grounded in the right of self-defense. And they view that right as an individual right. For conservatives, the police are a supplement to self-defense, not a substitute for self-defense.

Liberals, by contrast, believe in social control. They distrust the hoi polloi to act responsibility. Citizens are like underage children who require the adult supervision of the State. Bureaucrats are the official grown-ups who keep the rest of us in check. Give us an allowance. Set the curfew. Ground us for coming home too late.

For liberals, the police are a substitute for self-defense, not a supplement to self-defense.

Because the hoi polloi can’t be trusted, the State needs to impose a degree of uniformity on social conduct. An individual cannot be allowed to own a gun because that would introduce an unstable element into the social order. That would represent a loss of control. You can’t predict what an individual will do. An individual is a free variable. And that’s intolerable.

Individual conduct must be strictly regulated so that everyone does the same thing. So that everyone is answerable to the same handlers and minders. Order trumps freedom because freedom is a destabilizing force, and individuals can’t be trusted to act responsibly. The State must impose a large measure of social conformity on the populace. To think alike, speak alike, dress alike, eat alike, live alike.

From a conservative viewpoint, this represents the worst of all possible worlds. It doesn’t eliminate criminality since, by definition, criminals refuse to play by the rules.

The practical effect is twofold: (i) It leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless in the face of the criminal element; (ii) it’s a recipe for abuse of power since there’s no check on the ruling class. Bureaucrats are no wiser or more virtuous than the citizens they govern, and power goes to their head.

Government is just a bunch of people. It empowers one bunch of people at the expense of another. Unless accountability is a two-way street, the State becomes tyrannical.

Liberalism is a half-truth. It’s true that many private citizens can’t be trusted. But it’s equally true that many public officials can’t be trusted. The political class is just as sinful as the governed.

No mechanism will save us from ourselves. There’s no substitute for virtue. That’s why secular ideologies careen between the equally dysfunctional options of anarchy and totalitarianism. Right now, liberalism is going through a totalitarian phase.

If you arm civilians, some individuals will abuse the right to bear arms. Liberals will point to isolated atrocities as proof that we need to confiscate guns. Of course, they don’t start with confiscation. Their policy is more incremental than that.

But if you disarm the citizenry, then the average citizen is literally defenseless against the criminal element. It all depends on whether the police can arrive in time. A minute too late and you’re dead.

For liberals, it’s better to have the occasional massacre of unarmed civilians by a well-armed sniper because that’s the price you pay for social control. The innocent must die for the common good. That’s the unfortunate, but necessary cost of preserving the social order. Don’t take it personally.

Of course, even if you accept that calculus in theory, it doesn’t work out that way in practice. Criminals soon outnumber policemen. Soon the police are outgunned. Organized crime takes over.

The right to bear arms goes back to the fundamental principle that I have the right and responsibility to defend myself and my family. The State doesn’t have the right to abrogate my individual right of self-defense. The State exists to protect my rights, not abrogate my rights by transferring them to the State.

From The Mary Of History To The Mary Of Roman Catholicism

From Philip Schaff's History Of The Christian Church (Saginaw, Michigan: Historical Exegetical ‘Lectronic Publishing, 1996):

From her [Mary's] example issues a silent blessing upon all generations, and her name and memory are, and ever will be, inseparable from the holiest mysteries and benefits of faith. For this reason her name is even wrought into the Apostles' Creed, in the simple and chaste words: "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary."

The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the wholesome biblical limit, and transformed the "mother of the Lord" into a mother of God, the "humble handmaid of the Lord" into a queen of heaven, the "highly favored" into a dispenser of favors, the "blessed among women" into an intercessor above all women, nay, we may almost say, the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is nowhere in Holy Scripture excepted from the universal sinfulness, into a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. At first she was acquitted only of actual sin, afterward even of original; though the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin was long contested, and was not established as an article of faith in the Roman church till 1854. Thus the veneration of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary; and this took so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age, that, in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria, and dulia, and hyperdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed over the worship of Christ. Hence in the innumerable Madonnas of Catholic art the human mother is the principal figure, and the divine child accessory. The Romish devotions scarcely utter a Pater Noster without an Ave Maria, and turn even more frequently and naturally to the compassionate, tender-hearted mother for her intercessions, than to the eternal Son of God, thinking that in this indirect way the desired gift is more sure to be obtained. To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal points of separation between the Graeco-Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism. It is one of the strongest expressions of the fundamental Romish error of unduly exalting the human factors or instruments of redemption, and obstructing, or rendering needless, the immediate access of believers to Christ, by thrusting in subordinate mediators. Nor can we but agree with nearly all unbiased historians in regarding the worship of Mary as an echo of ancient heathenism. It brings plainly to mind the worship of Ceres, of Isis, and of other ancient mothers of the gods; as the worship of saints and angels recalls the hero-worship of Greece and Rome. Polytheism was so deeply rooted among the people, that it reproduced itself in Christian forms. The popular religious want had accustomed itself even to female deities, and very naturally betook itself first of all to Mary, the highly favored and blessed mother of the divine-human Redeemer, as the worthiest object of adoration....

In striking contrast with this healthful and sober representation of Mary in the canonical Gospels are the numerous apocryphal Gospels of the third and fourth centuries, which decorated the life of Mary with fantastic fables and wonders of every kind, and thus furnished a pseudo-historical foundation for an unscriptural Mariology and Mariolatry. The Catholic church, it is true, condemned this apocryphal literature so early as the Decrees of Gelasius [bishop of Rome]; yet many of the fabulous elements of it - such as the names of the parents of Mary, Joachim (instead of Eli, as in Luke iii.23) and Anna, the birth of Mary in a cave, her education in the temple, and her mock marriage with the aged Joseph - passed into the Catholic tradition....

The titles given to Mary [in the Middle Ages] were far more numerous than the titles given to Christ and every one of them is extra-biblical except the word "virgin." An exuberant fancy allegorized references to her out of all sorts of texts, never dreamed of by their writers. She was found referred to in almost every figurative expression of the Old Testament which could be applied to a pure, human being. To all the Schoolmen, Mary is the mother of God, the queen of heaven, the clement queen, the queen of the world, the empress of the world, the mediatrix, the queen of the ages, the queen of angels, men and demons, the model of all virtues...

Monks, theologians, and poets strain the Latin language to express their admiration of her beauty and benignity, her chastity and heavenly glory. Her motherhood and virginity are alike subjects of eulogy. The conception of physical grace, as expressed when the older Notker of St. Gall called her "the most beautiful of all virgins," filled the thought of the Schoolmen and the peasant. Albertus Magnus devotes a whole chapter of more than thirty pages of two columns each to the praise of her corporal beauty. In his exposition of Canticles 1:15, "Behold thou art fair, my love," he comments upon the beauty of her hair, her shoulders, her lips, her nose, her feet, and other parts of her body. Bonaventura's hymns in her praise abound in tropical expressions, such as "she is more ruddy than the rose and whiter than the lily." Wernher of Tegernsee about 1178 sang:

Her face was so virtuous, her eyes so Bright,
Her manner so pure, that, among all women,
None could with her compare.

In a remarkable passage, Bernard represents her in the celestial places drawing attention to herself by her form and beauty so that she attracted the King himself [God] to desire her. [Schaff explains in a footnote that the term Bernard uses for "desire" is "the usual word for lust".] ...

The Canticles was regarded as an inspired anthology of Mary's excellences of body and soul. Damiani represents God as inflamed with love for her and singing its lines in her praise. She was the golden bed on which God, weary in His labor for men and angels, lay down for repose. The later interpretation was that the book [Song of Solomon] is a bridal song for the nuptials between the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Bernard's homilies on this portion of Scripture are the most famous collection of the Middle Ages. Alanus ab Insulis, who calls Mary the "tabernacle of God, the palace of the celestial King," says that it [Song of Solomon] refers to the Church, but in an especial and most spiritual way to the glorious virgin. Writer after writer, preacher after preacher, took up this favorite portion of the Old Testament. An abbess represented the Virgin as singing to the Spirit: "My beloved is mine and I am his. He will tarry between my breasts." The Holy Spirit responded, "Thy breasts are sweeter than honey."

To Mary was given a place of dignity equal or superior to Christ as the friend of the sinful and unfortunate and the guide of souls to heaven. Damiani called her "the door of heaven," the window of paradise. Anselm spoke of her as "the vestibule of universal propitiation, the cause of universal reconciliation, the vase and temple of life and salvation for the world." A favorite expression was "the tree of life" - lignum vitae - based upon Prov. iii:8. Albertus Magnus, in the large volume he devotes to Mary's virtues, gives no less than forty reasons why she should be worshipped, authority being found for each one in a text of Scripture. The first reason was that the Son of God honors Mary. This accords with the fifth commandment, and Christ himself said of his mother, "I will glorify the house of my glory," Isa. lx:7; house, according to the Schoolman, being intended to mean Mary. The Bible teems with open and concealed references to her. Albertus ascribed to her thirty-five virtues, on all of which he elaborates at length, such as humility, sincerity, benignity, omnipotence, and modesty. He finds eighty-one biblical names indicative of her functions and graces. Twelve of these are taken from things in the heavens. She is a sun, a moon, a light, a cloud, a horizon, an aurora. Eight are taken from things terrestrial. Mary is a field, a mountain, a hill, a stone. Twenty-one are represented by things pertaining to water. She is a river, a fountain, a lake, a fish-pond, a cistern, a torrent, a shell. Thirty-one are taken from biblical figures. Mary is an ark, a chair, a house, a bed, a nest, a furnace, a library. Nine are taken from military and married life. Mary is a castle, a tower, a wall. It may be interesting to know how Mary fulfilled the office of a library. In her, said the ingenious Schoolman, were found all the books of the Old Testament, of all of which she had plenary knowledge as is shown in the words of her song which run, "as was spoken by our fathers." [Luke 1:55] She also had plenary knowledge of the Gospels as is evident from Luke ii:19: "Mary kept all these sayings in her heart."...

Bonaventura equals Albertus in ransacking the heavens and the earth and the waters for figures to express Mary's glories and there is a tender chord of mysticism running through his expositions which is adapted to move all hearts and to carry the reader, not on his guard, away from the simple biblical statements. The devout Franciscan frequently returns to this theme and makes Mary the subject of his verse and sermons. He exhausts the vocabulary for words in her praise. She is prefigured in Jacob's ladder, Noah's ark, the brazen serpent, Aaron's rod, the star of Balaam, the pot of manna, Gideon's horn, and other objects of Hebrew history. To each of these his Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary devotes poetic treatment extending in cases to more than one hundred lines and carrying the reader away by their affluence of imagination and the sweetness of the rhythm.

Imitating the Book of Psalms, Bonaventura wrote two psalteries, each consisting of one hundred and fifty parts. Each part of the Minor Psaltery consists of four lines, its opening lines being "Hail Virgin, tree of life; Hail Virgin, door of liberty; Hail Virgin, dear to God; Hail Virgin, light of the world; Hail Virgin, harbor of life; Hail Virgin, most beautiful." In the Greater Psaltery, Bonaventura paraphrases the one hundred and fifty psalms and introduces into each one Mary's name and her attributes, revelling in ascriptions of her preeminence over men and angels. Here are several selections, but no selection can give any adequate idea of the liberty taken with Scripture. The first Psalm is made to run, "Blessed is the man who loves thee, O Virgin Mary. Thy grace will comfort his soul." The twenty-third runs, "The Lord directs me, O Virgin mother of God - genetrix dei - because thou hast turned towards me His loving countenance." The first verse of Psalm 121 reads, "I have lifted up my eyes to thee, O Mother of Christ, from whom solace comes to all flesh."...

So also Bonaventura pronounces Mary the mediator between us and Christ. As God is the lord of revenge - Dominus ultionum,- he says in his Greater Psaltery, so Mary is the mother of compassion. She presents the requests of mortals to the Second Person of the Trinity, softening his wrath and winning favors which otherwise would not be secured....

Where the thinkers and singers of the age were so ardent in their worship of Mary, what could be expected from the mass of monks and from the people!...

In few respects are the worship and teaching of the Middle Ages so different from those of the Protestant churches as in the claims made for Mary and the regard paid to her. If we are to judge by the utterances and example of [Popes] Pius IX. and Leo XIII., the mediaeval cult still goes on in the Roman communion. And more recently [Pope] Pius X. shows that he follows his predecessors closely. In his encyclical of Jan. 15, 1907, addressed to the French bishops, he says, "In full confidence that the Virgin Immaculate, daughter of our Father, mother of the Word, spouse of the Holy Ghost, will obtain for you from the most holy and adorable Trinity better days, we give you our Apostolic Benediction."

Mary As Co-Redemptress

Eric Svendsen will be on "The Bible Answer Man" radio program next Tuesday to discuss the topic "Is Mary Co-Redemptress Of The World?".

Sense And Nonsense About Heaven And Hell

I recently read a book I'd like to recommend, Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman's Sense And Nonsense About Heaven And Hell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007). It's a good intermediate-level overview of the Biblical perspective of the afterlife and some related issues. There are some relevant subjects that aren't addressed much or at all, such as near-death experiences and Purgatory (for more on those issues, see here and here), but the book discusses a large variety of topics in less than 200 pages: the immortality of the soul, the nature of the resurrection body, annihilationism, universalism, infant salvation, etc. This would be a good book to read or to give to others as an introduction to a Biblical view of the afterlife and related issues.

The Credibility Of The Gospel Resurrection Narratives

Those who have listened to the Licona/Ehrman debate on the resurrection that I discussed yesterday might be interested in some other resources that address issues like the ones raised in that debate. Concerning the credibility of the resurrection narratives in general, I would recommend N.T. Wright's The Resurrection Of The Son Of God (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003) and commentaries on the gospels such as Craig Keener's A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999), his The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), and Darrell Bock's Luke, Volume 2, 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996). On the genre of the resurrection narratives, see here. Regarding whether the resurrection narratives were unhistorical legends that grew over time, see here. Concerning the unexpected nature of the resurrection narratives, see here. On the authorship of the gospels, see here, here, here, and here. On the general reliability of early Christian authorship attributions, see here. Last year, I wrote four articles on some evidence that's often neglected for the traditional gospel authorship attributions: here, here, here, and here. Two years ago, I had some lengthy interactions with a member of the Debunking Christianity staff regarding many of the issues surrounding Jesus' resurrection, including some of the issues addressed in the Licona/Ehrman debate. Two of the most significant articles I wrote in that context are here and here. I'll close with a quote of some portions of the second article that are relevant to Bart Ehrman's vision theory and his dismissal of the resurrection narratives in the gospels:

Demanding more evidence doesn't explain the evidence we have. And considering that the early Christians preserved eyewitness testimony from apostles and their associates (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Polycarp, etc.), why should we believe that this testimony can't be accepted unless it's accompanied by more testimony? Why should we believe that what we have is insufficient? Considering that modern skeptics have to resort to highly speculative theories about widespread memory loss, widespread hallucinations, widespread apathy, etc., the evidence we have is sufficient to make skeptics resort to ridiculous theories that are far less plausible than the Christian alternative. Why isn't that sufficient? And that's just on the one issue of Jesus' resurrection. When other issues are taken into consideration as well, such as fulfilled prophecy, the skeptical theories become even more ridiculous....

People also knew that men like Abel and Zechariah were put to death unjustly (Matthew 23:35), yet no resurrection occurred just after their death. Their resurrection in the end times might be viewed as some sort of reversal of what had been done to them unjustly, but an unjust death by itself wasn't enough to convince people that a resurrection was going to occur just after the death. And the early Christians tell us that people weren't expecting to see Jesus risen (Matthew 28:1-6, 16:1-3, Luke 24:11, John 20:25, Acts 9:1, etc.), even after they heard of the empty tomb (Luke 24:11, 24:21-24, John 20:2, 20:15, 20:25). Men like James, Paul, and Paul's travel companions weren't Christians, so why should we think that they were expecting any vindication of Jesus? And the people who saw Jesus repeatedly failed to initially recognize who they were seeing (Luke 24:13-31, John 20:15, 21:4, Acts 9:5). If they were expecting to see Jesus, then why would they initially not recognize who they had seen?...

If first century Jews thought that a resurrection had occurred, they would expect physical evidence to accompany it. As I explained to Matthew [Green of Debunking Christianity] before, it's highly unlikely that a group of eleven men or more than 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6), for example, would all naturalistically experience a vision in an altered state of consciousness on the same subject at the same time, without realizing that they were mistaken. If these visions occurred in their minds, not outside their minds, then we would expect one person to see Jesus standing 500 feet away to the south, while another person would think he sees Jesus standing 10 feet away to the east. Different people would hear Jesus saying different things. When they compared their experiences, there would be major, widespread contradictions. Where's Matthew's evidence that people can naturalistically share detailed visions on the same subject at the same time? And if he thinks it can happen, why does he think it's probable with all of the resurrection accounts?...

Matthew hasn't proven any "discrepancies and embellishments", and even if there were some errors in the resurrection accounts, an error on one issue wouldn't justify a dismissal of what's reported on every other issue. Some of the details most problematic for Matthew's theory are details that are agreed upon by all of the sources. For example, all of the sources agree that the resurrection witnesses weren't expecting to see Jesus resurrected (Matthew 28:1-6, Mark 9:10, 16:1-3, Luke 24:11, John 20:25, Acts 9:1, etc.). The three documents that go into the most detail about the resurrection appearances (Luke, John, and Acts) tell us that people sometimes didn't initially know that they were seeing Jesus (Luke 24:13-31, John 20:15, 21:4, Acts 9:5). All four gospel authors refer to physical evidence produced by the resurrection (Matthew 28:9, Mark 16:4-6, Luke 24:42-43, John 21:9-13, etc.). All of the sources reporting on resurrection appearances agree that Jesus appeared to groups of people (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36, John 20:26, Acts 9:7, 1 Corinthians 15:6, etc.). Thus, characteristics such as a lack of expectation, a lack of initial recognition of Jesus, an interest in and the presence of physical evidence, and appearances to groups of people (not just individuals) are widely attested, and there's nothing about the reporting of such characteristics that suggests "discrepancy" or "embellishment". These characteristics are widely reported and are inconsistent with what we know about hallucinations and other psychological disorders.

And you can't just assume that there was some type of naturalistic experience that occurred in ancient honor-shame societies that would be able to overcome such obstacles. If you have no evidence for such naturalistic experiences, then assuming the existence of them whenever you need to, in order to maintain your theory, isn't convincing....

The suggestion that John was unaware of all of the earlier gospels, or that he thought that it would be acceptable to contradict them, is highly unlikely. As Craig Keener writes:

"Suggesting that the Fourth Gospel is not directly dependent on the Synoptics need not imply that John did not know of the existence of the Synoptics; even if (as is unlikely) Johannine Christianity were as isolated from other circles of Christianity as some have proposed, other gospels must have been known if travelers afforded any contact at all among Christian communities. That travelers did so may be regarded as virtually certain. Urban Christians traveled(1 Cor 16:10, 12, 17; Phil 2:30; 4:18), carried letters (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:25), relocated to other places (Rom 16:3, 5; perhaps 16:6-15), and sent greetings to other churches (Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10-15). In the first century many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7-9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-5; 9:2-4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14-16; cf. 3 John 5-12) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9). Although we need not suppose connections among churches as pervasive as Ignatius’ letters suggest perhaps two decades later, neither need we imagine that such connections emerged ex nihilo in the altogether brief silence between John’s Gospel and the ‘postapostolic’ period. No one familiar with the urban society of the eastern empire will be impressed with the isolation Gospel scholars often attribute to the Gospel 'communities.'" (The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 41-42)

John surely was familiar with at least one of the Synoptics, probably all of them, and he probably regarded them highly, as other Christians of the time did. John's disciple Papias, for example, speaks highly of Mark's gospel....

As I've documented, there are many details in the early documents (and not just the gospels) that are inconsistent with Matthew's theory. For Matthew to sustain his theory, he has to propose that large portions of the early documents are unhistorical, and at a time when contemporaries and eyewitnesses of Jesus and the apostles were still alive and in prominent places of leadership. Matthew would have us think that Jews believing in a resurrection would mistake naturalistic visions for a physical resurrection, and would fail to look for the sort of physical evidence referred to in the gospels and Acts, then would allow their later contemporaries to make up the accounts we find in documents like the gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians. Not only did the early Christians allow it to happen and not leave any trace of opposition in the historical record, but the early enemies of Christianity either didn't notice it or also failed to leave any trace of their objections in the historical record. And Matthew proposes all of this, and more, just to dismiss one miracle associated with Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. When you include the other theories he has to propose to dismiss everything else he dislikes, you end up with major portions of documents written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles that Matthew has to dismiss. What we have under Matthew's scenario is a Jesus who is radically redefined by eyewitnesses and contemporaries who were willing to suffer and die for what they were reporting about Him, and the people alive at the time who knew better apparently were too apathetic to do much about it.

Why Bart Ehrman Keeps Losing Debates

I recently listened to a debate held earlier this year, between Michael Licona and Bart Ehrman, on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Much of what I said in a previous post about the 2006 debate between William Craig and Bart Ehrman is applicable to this more recent debate. Ehrman repeats a lot of what he argued in the 2006 debate, even on issues where Craig had corrected him.

Ehrman ignores Craig's refutation of his assertion that miracles are the "least likely occurrence" in any historical context. Not only did Craig correct Ehrman on this issue in 2006, but so did Licona in this 2008 debate, yet Ehrman kept repeating the argument even after Licona had refuted it as well. For an example of Ehrman's repetition of the argument after it was refuted, see the eleventh minute of the second hour.

Ehrman repeats a lot of claims of liberal scholarship that were answered long ago. He doesn't make much of an effort to interact with more recent and more conservative scholarship. Many of his claims have been refuted by the likes of Richard Bauckham's Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006) and Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd's The Jesus Legend (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007).

Early in the debate, Ehrman claims that the records we have of Peter's death are "legends that were written hundreds of years later" (thirty-second minute of the first hour). Yet, around the fifty-fourth minute of the second hour, he tells us that Peter and Paul are the only apostles for whom we have first-century records of their death. Even that second claim is wrong, as Licona notes. For more on this subject, see here.

He makes the dubious claim that none of the gospels claim to have been written by eyewitnesses (thirty-fourth minute of the first hour).

He comments that the titles of the gospels aren't found until the second century (thirty-fifth minute of the first hour), which doesn't have much significance if he's limiting his claim to gospel manuscripts. We don't have any gospel manuscripts prior to the second century.

He asserts that the gospel authors relied on oral tradition, as if there were no previous written records (thirty-fifth minute of the first hour).

He makes the ridiculous comparison between the early transmission of oral tradition and the telephone game played by children (thirty-sixth minute of the first hour).

He criticizes attempts to harmonize the gospels, as if such a procedure is equivalent to writing our own fifth gospel (fortieth minute of the first hour), even though historians regularly practice harmonization of sources.

He makes the absurd claim that Jesus' resurrection is a matter of theology, but not history (forty-second minute of the first hour).

He makes comparisons between the reports of Jesus' resurrection and allegedly similar reports in other sources, such as Apollonius of Tyana, but repeatedly fails to take note of the differences among these accounts. (For some discussions of such alleged parallels to the accounts about Jesus, see Steve Hays' e-book on the resurrection, This Joyful Eastertide, and here.) Ehrman doesn't seem to have much familiarity with the Christian response to his argument. Michael Licona's mentor, Gary Habermas, has frequently addressed this issue, for example.

Ehrman apparently didn't even know that Licona believes in Biblical inerrancy (fourth minute of the second hour).

He makes a ridiculous comparison between Sabbati Sevi's conversion to Islam and Paul's conversion to Christianity (twenty-fifth minute of the second hour).

He repeatedly ignores the evidence we have from Paul when discussing the nature of the evidence we have for the resurrection. In response to Licona's refutation of his comparison between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana, Ehrman refers to the lateness of the gospels and their alleged anonymity, for example, without mentioning the earliness and non-anonymous nature of Paul and other sources Paul refers to (the creed of 1 Corinthians 15, for example). See, for example, minutes twenty-seven and forty-one of the second hour.

Ehrman's attempts to undermine the historicity of the empty tomb are weak, and he doesn't even address some of the most significant evidence supporting the historicity of the empty tomb. He claims that Mark's report of the discovery of the empty tomb by women is suspicious, because having women discover it would be consistent with one of the motifs of Mark's gospel. Supposedly, Mark wanted "outsiders" to discover the empty tomb, and the women qualified as such. But if the unbelief of other people, such as the apostles, disqualified them from being the discoverers of the empty tomb in Mark's eyes, then why wouldn't the unbelief of the women do the same for them? They didn't go to the tomb expecting it to be empty. And it's not as though Mark couldn't have had a male outsider discover the tomb. For some examples of the evidence for the empty tomb that Ehrman didn't address, see here.

Ehrman repeatedly assumes that ancient non-Christian or modern accounts of the miraculous are unhistorical, then parallels those accounts with what the early Christians reported and suggests that we shouldn't accept the Christian accounts either. But a Christian worldview allows for miracles outside of Biblical history, both Divine and demonic supernatural activity. He doesn't justify his assumption that these extra-Biblical reports are false, and he often ignores significant differences between those accounts and the Biblical accounts. For a discussion of one of the extra-Biblical categories he mentioned, Marian apparitions, see here. And see here.

Ehrman lost this debate, just as he lost his debate with William Craig in 2006. (Licona had a bad voice during the debate, and he didn't use a lot of good arguments he could have used, yet he did better than Ehrman.) He lost both debates for similar reasons. He keeps repeating bad arguments that have long been refuted by Christians, including Christians who have explained the erroneous nature of those arguments in his presence. He doesn't seem to make much of an effort to research the arguments of his opponents, and he hasn't kept up much with scholarship that's more conservative than his own.

Calvinism, Attacked from Without and Within... et tu Brutas?

Victor Reppert's been blogging on Calvinism again. He said he was done for a while. Me thinks many Arminian philosophers and apologists have an axe to grind against Calvinism because if the Calvinists are right, those apologosophers lose out on one of their favorite arguments against physicalism, naturalism, and the atheism that uses those philosophical systems. Re-reading Reppert's DI book last week, I saw his use of libertarian free will play a somewhat key role in his AFR against naturalism. Same can be said of Moreland, Craig, and the rest of the usual suspects.

I guess on one hand I can understand, if I felt one of my best arguments for theism and against the best philosophies of atheism were undermined by a particular theological viewpoint, then I'd probably feel a bit nervous. But of course I hope I'd look at the theological merits of the case, bending the knee to Scripture. If that is what the Bible taught, so much for my precious argument. And of course Calvinists feel that the very best exegesis and systematic theology is borne out and expressed by the Reformed faith.

So I wonder why Victor posts on Calvinism. Is it to rally the Arminian troops? To reaffirm Arminian thought. Help Arminians sleep well at night? It certainly can't be to persuade Calvinists. Us Calvinists believe that the Bible teaches Calvinism. Victor never presents and defends any exegetical interpretation of key passages. Simply refuses to debate the exegetical case. That's fine. He's a philosopher and not a theologian, he says. Okay, we understand. But he must understand that he's simply not going to get anywhere with the Calvinists...if he's even trying to, that is.

I mean, we're certainly not going to drop what we take to be the best exegesis and systematic theology, the theological system which gives most glory to God and presents the most robust worldview that can meet unregenerate man head on, for some philosophical position that is mired in controversy and has been going on for thousands of years. And despite what some may believe, it's not even clear that libertarianism is the shining light on the hill leading men to theism and away from naturalism and physicalism. Van Inwagen is a physicalist about man, yet for a large portion of his career he was also libertarian about free will. Kane, one of the foremost defenders of libertarian free will today presents a fully naturalistic account of LFW in his books on free will. So though Victor may say that theologians debate the text and so Calvinism isn't "clear," it is also true that philosophers debate issues of moral responsibility and free will and so his philosophical arguments hardly can play the trump here. Not only that, it seems to me that it is the Calvinist in the debate who plays both games the best. Victor uses the debates among theologians as his excuse for not having to deal with the exegetical arguments. But I could play the same game with the philosophers. When I appeal to Frankfurt, Fisher, semi-compatibilism, etc., I do so only as a way to (a) meet the philosophical objections on their own ground and (b) as a handmaiden to the Queen of the sciences. Victor must understand that, for the Calvinist (or at least for me), I don't care if FCEs are problematic or if compatibilism is (on strictly philosophical grounds, that is). To me all that means is that I had better find another way to express what is in the Bible. I could simply say, "Well this is what the Bible teaches, so either (a) reject it or (b) drop your arguments against it." One must understand that when dealing with someone who has what would be, if true, the most unimproved justification or warrant one could have for believing something (God said so), then you need to deal with the justification itself. Take the case of the purloined letter. Memory was enough to function as a defeater-defeater in that case. The analogy fails because a video recording of the theft would defeat the defeater-defeater where a philosophical speculation (on that is hotly debated at that) isn't going to serve as a defeater against what God says. So Victor (or any Arminian, or even an atheist for that matter) had better engage the text itself. Perhaps there may be some areas where a philosophical argument could lead us to change our understanding of Scripture. I grant that. I grant that the situation can serve to make us aware that the norm isn't what we had thought. But one is going to be hard pressed to make that case in a highly debatable field of philosophical inquiry. One that has been going on for thousands of years, with no end in site! Victor may think indeterminism and libertarianism are just "obvious," but it is obviously (!) not that "obvious." All one needs to do is look on Amazon. Even my own library would show that "it's a jungle out there."

When I look at the totality of everything involved, whether there are problems with Frankfurt counter examples or not, that just trails in the dust in relation to the big picture. And Calvinists are "big picture" Christians. Besides all of this, us Calvinists can't understand why Arminians just can't see how what they think is problematic on Calvinism is just as problematic on Arminianism, perhaps with some minor tweaking. Not only that, it's not enough to (try to) show that someone is not morally responsible if their action was determined. The Arminian needs to do the dual job of (trying to) showing that Scripture doesn't teach that God determines whatsoever comes to pass according to the council of his will. That's because if Scripture teaches what the Calvinist claims, and teaches that men are responsible, then all the Arminian has done by his argument is to show that Christianity is in error. So if the best exegesis is on the side of the Calvinist, the Arminian had better look for ways to show that moral praise and blame is compatible with determinism. Certainly the Calvinist, since he believes his exegesis and systematic theology the best there is on offer, is under no rational obligation to capitulate to Arminian philosophical objections. The Calvinist, hopefully, doesn't let his apologetic concerns drive his theology. For him it's the other way around.

But besides all of this, if Arminian objections fair no better than how they claim the Calvinist system fairs, the Calvinist has even more reason to simply shrug off Arminian philosophical objections, especially when they come minus any theological ones. One example of this is found in one of Reppert's posts:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/07/calvinists-and-secular-compatibilists.html

Calvinists maintain the following:

1) God's decrees set in motion causal chains that guarantee the
occurrence of all that happens in the world.

2) Persons are morally responsible for those actions, even though they
are the inevitable result of a divine decree.

3) These actions deserve retributive punishment, which in those who do
not receive the saving grace of Christ, is meted out to sinners in
hell.

4) God is not blameworthy for decreeing those actions that He himself
judges as evil. (It is either good because God decreed it, or it is
good because of an unknown and unknowable reason God might have
had).

Of course much of this is vague and ambiguous, if not misleading. (1) can be read fatalistically. Do the events occur regardless of secondary causes or means? (2) has that implication as well. (3) is vague. Which "actions" deserve retributive punishment? The baby's cooing? That was an action, and it was determined. (1) began with "all events" and (3) just speaks of sins. (4) leaves out that we in fact do know the God-justifying reason for his decrees sometimes. (1) - (4) are also imprecise in that they do not distinguish between the decree and providence.

Now, the above four points (taking into consideration my comments) can be found in Scripture. Reppert takes (1) - (4) to constitute problems for Calvinists, so I would maintain that he must find a problem with Scripture itself. This can be seen, in one instance, by tracing the plan of redemption (in its most broad way). I will list four points below that correspond with the four points above. The advantage of this is that no orthodox Christian can deny any of the four points I list. My list is not uncontroversial, that is. Beginning with Genesis we have:

1*) Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

2*) Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross ... Acts 4:27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

3*) Acts 17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed ... Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

4*) Romans 8: 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Basically, the Arminian is in a bind. If the argument is that: "If God decrees a person to commit an immoral act, then God is also blameworthy," the Arminian must either drop his argument or admit that God is worthy of blame since in decreeing the death of Jesus he decreed his murder, murder is evil, therefore God decreed evil. Stated another way, the Bible tells us that each man's death is appointed by God, since some men die at the hands of a murderer, God must have decreed murder, since murder is evil, God must have decreed evil. So I don't see what the big deal is. It certainly can't be that in some instances since we don't know what the God-justifying reason is (which we do in the case of Jesus, salvation for his people), there can't be a God-justifying reason. That would be an argument from silence. If it is not an argument from silence then, following Douglas Walton, the objection is in the form of a conditional: If x were the case, then we would expect to know the God justifying reason for x. But I flat out deny that conditional. I especially deny it since an all knowing being told us that he has a good reason for all he does. So the Arminian argument from evil against the Calvinist is shown to backfire since they also believe God decreed what he calls evil. And since they don't believe it was immoral to do that, they can't hold to the general premise that if God decrees an evil, God is to blame.

Not only that, the Arminian has much the same problem as (1) - (4) above, just with some tweaking. For example:

1**) God's creation set in motion the events he knew would unfold if he actually instantiated the creation. (Some get around this by denying God his exhaustive foreknowledge (in the traditional sense)).

2**) Person's are morally responsible for doing what God knew they would do and they would not have done had he not created them.

3**) These actions deserve retributive punishment. (Some avoid this by postulating problematic notions of the atonement and hell. Some simply eliminate the problematic entities from their theology, viz., universalists).

4**) God is not morally blameworthy for intervening to stop an evil whereas a created person would be. (It is either good because God decreed it (c f. various libertarian/Arminian DCTists), or it is good because of an unknown and unknowable reason God might have had (cf. the various skeptical theism arguments from popular Arminian/libertarian philosophers and apologists)).

To close it off, Reppert wonders what secular compatibilists would disagree with in his (1) - (4):

"1) She could say that while natural determinism is compatible with moral responsibility, control by an agent is not, especially an omnipotent one. The problem would then be to account in some principed way for the difference in the way these two cases are adjudicated."

She could say that, sure, but where's the argument? This is simply an assertion. She obviously doesn't believe that in any case whatever where one agent has the power to stop some evil, he should. Certainly she thinks that a father allowing a doctor to stitch up his son, causing his son pain, is not evil, for there's a good reason. So they'd need to do some work here, and I've seen nothing promising coming down the pike. Oh, and of course she would need to present and defend a secular theory of ethic in terms of which she can judge Calvinism by.

"2) She could argue that the attribution of moral responsibility should never be retributive. If that is the case, then the kind of responsiblity-attribution they are engaged in is markedly different from that of the Calvinist, and perhaps different standards apply. If I am asking "Who is responsible" because I want to know whose behavior I need to modify, as opposed to who deserves punishment, this is a very different enterprise, and one that is actually easier to reconcile with determinism."

And all the Calvinist need do is point out the massive problems with this remedial theory. I can use the pagans do beat down the pagans. Not only that, we still need a secular justification of ethics. Oh, and I'll be sure to line up the victims of child molestation and rape and let them know that their attacker is not getting punished. If this is the secular "problem" with Calvinism, then we're fairly free from critical inquiry.

"3) She could argue that there is no "conservation of responsibility," that just because O. J. Simpson is responsible for committing two murders (assuming the prosecution was right) does not mean that an "accessory before the foundation of the world (not just before the fact)" is not also responsible."

Again, yeah, she could try to make this argument. But not only does she need to present and defend her secular ethic, she needs to show how S murdering S* is the same as when S** decrees the murder of S*. One commits the murder, and does so with evil intentions, the other does neither. And, if (3) is a good argument, then as we've seen above, Victor himself has problems since God decreed the murder of Jesus... and he did so "from the foundation of the world."

Now, I understand the purpose of Reppert's post wasn't meant to be an argument against Calvinists, but I don't mean this to be a response to Reppert's post. I simply mean if for T-blog readers. His post also exhibits (sub consciously or consciously) his common misunderstandings and unfamiliarity with Calvinism. So they were corrected. And since he offers possible secular challenges to Calvinism, I took the liberty (!) to point out what the secularist would need to do if he even wanted to get his attack of the ground. Besides that, I think it telling that the secularists strongest argument against Christianity is the argument from evil and the Arminian Christian's strongest argument against Calvinism is the problem of evil. Just as unregenerate hate Christianity, it seems the Arminian hates the Calvinist system with the same passion. I find all of this very telling and think there's more going on behind the scenes. If God really came into the world, revealed his holy character, and set forth the antithesis between him and us, would more people find it comforting than not?

"Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys' philosophies--these over simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either. "

— C.S. Lewis

Orthodox Bans

What is it about the Orthodox? Is their lack of integrity native to their religion?

Within the past year, two Orthodox participants in discussions here have earned a ban. In both instances warnings were issued almost from the time they first began posting here - not due to the content of their writing and argumentation, repetitive though it was, but due to their demagoguery in the comboxes.

Not only that, they both proceeded to defy their bans from the time they were issued. One would think that they would be at least somewhat concerned about maintaining some sort of testimony both personally and for their denomination. It doesn't look good for Orthodoxy to have representatives of their group who behave in such a manner.

What's more the second of these, Lvka, not only violated his ban, but he can't even keep his own word. In a comment since removed, Lvka actually agreed with my vote to permaban him, because without it, he wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to misbehave.

So much for Orthodox integrity. Currently, Lvka and Orthodox are not welcome here, not now, not ever. When Turretinfan urged clemency, I told him that I'm always open to the lifting of a ban. However, I'm not the only contributor to this blog. Unless the others here are open to lifting it, I will not lift it. I've tried that with Orthodox himself too, and he demonstrated he could not be trusted. Indeed, he took to posting pseudonymously for a time too, as if we couldn't figure out it was him.

This sort of infantile behavior will not be tolerated. As a reminder, this blog is also a ministry. We provide this service free of charge to the community, but that doesn't mean that the community gets to set their own terms when participating here. If people who are banned have something to say, then they can use their own blogs to say it - not this one. They wouldn't appreciate it if we showed up at an Orthodox church service and started behaving in this manner. We'd be ejected quickly. The same rules apply to them when they come here, as it would apply to us in such a situation.

So, let the record publicly show the entire blogging community that Lvka and Orthodox are not to be trusted to behave. If they are participating on your blogs, you might want to keep that in mind. I would urge other Orthodox bloggers, like Perry Robinson and JNorm -both of whom do a pretty good job and for whom, while I personally disagree with you both I have some respect for the way you comport yourselves - to have a word with their two peers about such childish behavior.

Get it together, Lvka, and you might just have your ban lifted later on, but it does not help you to act the way you are currently. Any continued posts from you in any thread will tell us that you don't believe that what you say here is worth the bandwidth, and we can do with you what we did with Orthodox - hunt down your posts in every thread, and delete them on the premise that you agree that your posts are without value and should be deleted.

The Early Post-Apostolic Christians Were Roman Catholic And Not Anything Like Evangelicalism?

Harvardman has posted some comments in another thread that reflect a common Roman Catholic sentiment:

"While it is possible to find fathers who seemed to believe in justification by faith, and while various interpretations of particular early patristic sources can be advanced to support some aspects of modern evangelical Christianity, the preponderance of the evidence DOES NOT look anything like modern evangelical Christianity. Rather, it appears that Christians who knew the apostles (or who knew men who knew them) and who were obviously neither Gnostics nor Arians, and who served as living examples of apostolic Christianity for the next generation, lived a Christianity centered around: obedience to their Bishop, rejection of the many rival claimants to the chair of their Bishop, and celebration of the Eucharist."

Different Catholics will cite different areas of agreement with the early church, and the argument can vary in other ways, but the general thrust of Harvardman's comments is commonly expressed by Catholics. The amount of truth in the argument depends on how some of the terms are being defined. Harvardman refers to "Christians who knew the apostles (or who knew men who knew them)", but often the length of time involved isn't defined so specifically. Some doctrines and practices, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and the veneration of images, were widely rejected in earlier generations, but were widely accepted later. A lot depends on what timeframe is in view and how other terms are being defined.

What should we expect to see in early church history in light of the claims of Roman Catholicism and its advocates? Should we just see the sort of vague similarity with Roman Catholicism that Harvardman refers to at the close of his comments above? Think of the claims made by the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, for example. Think of the claims made by Popes and Roman Catholic theologians and apologists over the centuries. The Roman Catholic denomination claims to be the one true church, founded by Christ, infallible and maintaining all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history. Catholics often state or suggest that all or most of the church fathers were Roman Catholic, that there were few or no rival orthodox groups in early church history, etc. Given such claims, should we expect Catholics like Harvardman to be appealing to such vague similarities with the early church, such as that they were "centered around: obedience to their Bishop, rejection of the many rival claimants to the chair of their Bishop, and celebration of the Eucharist"?

And what about the claim that the early church, as Harvardman defines it, "DOES NOT look anything like modern evangelical Christianity"? It doesn't look anything like Evangelicalism?

In the thread linked above, part of my response to Harvardman consisted of a series of links to articles in this blog's archives relevant to Roman Catholicism and the history of the patristic era. I believe that the following conclusions can be reached about the earliest post-apostolic generations of Christianity in light of the sort of evidence discussed in those linked articles:

- There was no papacy.
- There were multiple forms of church government, including forms not involving a monarchical episcopate.
- Church leaders were required to meet moral and doctrinal standards, and it was considered acceptable to disobey or separate from a leader who violated such standards.
- When apostolic succession was discussed, it was defined in different ways by different sources, and the concepts discussed involved reasoning and qualifications that we don't find in modern Roman Catholic arguments for apostolic succession.
- Infants weren't baptized initially, and the later practice of infant baptism was largely done for a different reason and at a different time than we see in modern Catholicism.
- There were multiple views of the eucharist on issues such as a eucharistic presence of Christ, and John 6 was sometimes interpreted metaphorically, for example.
- Though most of the early post-apostolic sources advocated some form of justification through works, some advocated justification through faith alone, and those who advocated justification through works disagreed with each other about the nature of the works, sometimes contradicting Roman Catholicism on the issue.
- Mary was believed to have sinned.
- They often discussed subjects such as bodily assumptions and what happened to men like Enoch and Elijah without mentioning a bodily assumption of Mary. The concept of an assumption of Mary is absent, including in contexts where it would be appropriate to mention the concept.
- Whether Mary was a perpetual virgin isn't discussed much, though the earliest view seems to be that she wasn't.
- Passages of scripture often cited in support of Roman Catholic Marian doctrines, such as Revelation 12, were interpreted differently than Catholics interpret those passages.
- The concept of Purgatory was initially absent and widely contradicted, and some of the later ante-Nicene fathers who are sometimes cited in support of the doctrine can only be cited for partial support, along with partial contradiction.
- There was widespread opposition to the veneration of images.
- There was widespread belief that prayer is to be offered only to God, not to angels or deceased humans.
- Despite much acceptance of one or more Apocryphal books as scripture, some of the Apocryphal books accepted aren't accepted by Roman Catholicism, and some sources rejected the Apocryphal books.
- Premillennialism seems to have been the most popular eschatology.

Other examples could be cited, such as a comparison between the ecumenism of modern Roman Catholicism and how the early patristic Christians viewed other religions and their adherents. But I think the examples above are sufficient to make the point. Why should we think that the early post-apostolic Christians were Roman Catholic? And why should we think they weren't anything like Evangelicalism?

Did The First Council Of Constantinople Condemn Premillennialism?

The subject of the condemnation of premillennialism by an ecumenical council has been prominent in some recent discussions here, so I thought I'd repost some of my comments on the subject from another thread. Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox, originally claimed that premillennialism was condemned as a heresy by an ecumenical council in the sixth century. He later retracted that claim and replaced it with the claim that the doctrine was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople in the fourth century. NPMcCallum, another Eastern Orthodox, also argued for a condemnation by First Constantinople. Here, below, is my latest response to NPMcCallum on the subject, from the thread here.

NPMcCallum said:

"Jason, I would agree with you 100% if it were not for 'whose kingdom shall have no end.' 'Whose kingdom shall have no end' is the ONLY phrase added to the Christological portion of the creed at Constantinople, the same council which condemns a known chilliast (and I think two known chilliasts, if I can find the source). Why add this phrase to the Creed? There is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm. I'll happily accept correction if you can show otherwise."

As I explained earlier, I don't know much about the history of the creed in question. I don't know the timing of the addition you're referring to or much else about its background. I know there's been disagreement among scholars regarding where different portions of the creed came from. I haven't followed those disputes in detail.

You've made a lot of assertions, but the only source you've cited so far has been a letter of Gregory Nazianzen, which mentions premillennialism, briefly, as one of the beliefs of some of the heretics in question. It wasn't the central belief of those heretics, and the council itself condemns multiple groups of heretics without any reference to premillennialism. If the phrase in question in the creed came from the council, and the council meant to condemn premillennialism of some type, I would want more evidence before concluding that a condemnation of premillennialism in general was in view. As I said before, an allusion to Luke 1:33 doesn't contradict premillennialism as it's commonly perceived, so the phrase itself shouldn't be seen as a condemnation of premillennialism. You would need to combine the phrase with something else indicating that a condemnation of premillennialism was in mind.

Philip Schaff writes, concerning this addition to the creed:

"This addition likewise is found substantially in the Antiochian creeds of 341, and is directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, who taught that the union of the power of God (ἐνέργεια δραστική) with the man Jesus will cease at the end of the world, so that the Son and His kingdom are not eternal Comp. Hefele, i. 438 and 507 sq." (source, note 1441)

That heresy isn't part of premillennialism in general. As I said earlier, a condemnation of a heretical form of premillennialism wouldn't qualify as a condemnation of premillennialism in general. You have to attach a heresy to premillennialism that isn't part of premillennialism itself in order to place some form of premillennialism under this condemnation.

You say that "there is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm", but Schaff's comments above provide another context. The eternality of Christ's reign is relevant to heretics who denied that Christ and His reign are eternal. No condemnation of premillennialism in general is needed to make sense of the creed.

Of the scholars I've read on the history of premillennialism so far, none have argued that the doctrine was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople. And as I noted earlier, the doctrine continued among mainstream Christians after First Constantinople. Furthermore, whoever composed the portion of the creed you're referencing probably realized that premillennialism had been a widespread belief, accepted by the likes of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. In light of such factors, a condemnation of premillennialism in general seems unlikely. The evidence I've seen so far is against your conclusion.

Romans 8:11 And Physical Resurrection

Chris Price has posted another article in his "Is Richard Carrier Wrong About..." series. The latest article addresses Carrier's view of Romans 8:11 as it relates to whether Paul believed in a physical resurrection.

In the comments section, Steven Carr posts some of his typical erroneous objections. (For those who don't know, Carr is a critic of Christianity who visits a lot of web sites and frequently posts on the subject of the resurrection. He doesn't make much of an effort to interact with or learn from the people who respond to him. He's posted here on occasion, and you can find our responses to him if you search the archives.) He objects that a resurrection isn't "EXPLICIT" in the passage, as if it needs to be. If the concept isn't "EXPLICIT" as he defines that term, then Price is "lying" and Price's interpretation must be "all in his mind". Then Carr objects that some passages Price cited from elsewhere in Paul's writings don't mention "our mortal bodies". But Price didn't cite the passages for that purpose. He cited them as more relevant than Carrier's passages, not as complete parallels to Romans 8:11. And Carr's citation of 2 Corinthians 5 only proves his view if we assume his reading rather than a Christian alternative, and he gives us no reason to prefer his.

For more on the subject of Paul's view of the resurrection, see here. Paul's Jewish context, the beliefs of his Christian contemporaries, and the beliefs of his churches shortly after his lifetime suggest that he believed in a bodily resurrection. Yet, Carr "wonders why Carrier can concede that some passages are problematic, yet true scholars like Layman cannot". Given that the sources surrounding Paul (those that influenced him, those influenced with him, and those influenced by him) affirmed a bodily resurrection, why should we think it would be unexpected if no passages in Paul are problematic for the position of bodily resurrection? The reason why Carrier acknowledges that some passages are problematic for his view is because his view is so wrong that he realizes that it's problematic and expects his readers to notice the same thing.

McCain/Obama on the issues

Barack Obama

John McCain

"Evangelicals for Obama"

Before I launch into some Obama bashing, I should, to be “fair and balanced,” say a thing or two about McCain.

McCain wasn’t my first pick. Or my second. Or my third, or fourth, or...

McCain rarely misses an opportunity remind conservatives of why we dislike him so. He goes out of his way to skewer conservatives.

The best argument for voting for McCain is that while Obama is bad on all the issues that McCain is bad on, McCain is better on a few other issues. Obama is uniformly bad. And I think that’s an adequate reason to vote for McCain.

That doesn’t mean it’s an adequate reason for me. McCain is daring conservatives to vote for him because the alternative is even worse. It’s a game of chicken.

I don’t know that I’m prepared to vote for a candidate under such coercive terms. Don’t count on me to blink first. I’m not responsible for this dilemma.

It’s kind of like one of those movie scenarios in which your captors force you to choose which captive will die to spare the lives of your fellow captives: “Either shoot him or we’ll shoot you!” In that situation, kill us all and let God sort it out.

I think one can justify voting for McCain, and I also think one can justify sitting out this election.

I’m also curious to see who he will pick for Veep. If it’s Romney, count me out.

I’d add that even if McCain is elected, there’s not much he can do should the Democrats pick up a veto-proof majority in Congress. Let’s not be so focused in the presidential election that we overlook the Congressional election. That’s equally important.

Now let’s shift to Obama. And let’s begin with white “evangelicals” who plan to vote for Obama.

“Green said young evangelicals are ‘tired of the confrontational politics we've had over the last couple of decades’."

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14154

Fine. Let’s elect conservatives. That would put an end to confrontational politics.

Barring that, I prefer gridlock to smooth traffic flow over a cliff.

“And want ‘a broader agenda’.”

I don’t want a broader agenda. I want a narrower agenda. Less government, not more.

“And a much more inclusive approach’."

There’s nothing “inclusive” about liberal social policies. It’s all about groupthink.

“According to the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 35 percent of young white evangelicals said society should accept homosexuality, compared to 22 percent of older evangelicals.”

“Accept” in what sense? To have all the same rights as normal people?

“While a commitment to poverty-fighting is nothing new for Christians, 58 percent of young white evangelicals would choose ‘bigger government providing more services’ over ‘smaller government providing fewer services’."

Of course, gov’t doesn’t fight poverty. It promotes poverty. It promotes a culture of dependency. In the welfare state, where you penalize productive citizens and subsidize unproductive citizens, there’s no incentive to work.

“Smith said her top priorities are the environment, poverty, and health care.”

Of course, this is code language for global warming, welfare, and universal health insurance. From what I can tell, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

Welfare doesn’t solve poverty. It creates and perpetuates poverty.

Universal heath insurance is a pyramid scam. Who’s going to pay? Not the poor. The rich? No. The rich shelter their income. Look at Ted Kennedy. He’s living off of his old man’s fortune.

Here’s a little history lesson for the younger generation. I grew up in a one-income, middle class family during the 60s and 70s. We didn’t have health insurance back them. No one did. It was a fee-for-service system. And it was affordable. We didn’t need heath insurance.

Insurance isn’t cost effective. If insurance were cost-effective, insurance companies would go out of business. They turn a profit on insurance because you pay in more than they pay out. It’s really pretty obvious.

In fact, government sponsored health insurance drives up the cost of health care. If gov’t is footing the bill, then the companies don’t have to be competitive. Just look at the post office.

BTW, I’m not knocking insurance, per se. But insurance is no solution to health care costs that annually rise higher than the rate of inflation. You end of with rationed health care. Just look at the UK.

“They're the issues that affect her most—more than abortion or gay marriage—and she thinks they're the issues Jesus prioritized, too: ‘I know that Jesus said visit the sick, feed the hungry,’ she said. ‘I feel like I'm not going against my faith by putting those issues at the forefront’."

First of all, she mentioned three issues, not just one. Was Jesus a member of the Green Party?

He also didn’t talk about the sick in general or the poor in general. That has reference to sick or hungry Christians.

BTW, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be charitable. But the Bible distinguishes between people who are poor through no fault of their own (e.g. widows and orphans) and people who are poor due to their lifestyle choices (e.g. sluggards).

In addition, the Bible proposes various forms of workfare (e.g. indentured service, gleaning the fields) rather than welfare. It proposes interest free loans rather than food stamps. You have to repay a loan.

"The whole gay thing?’ she says. ‘Jesus never mentioned homosexuals at all’."

Let’s see—he condemned fornication (Mt 5:19), defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Mt 19:4-6), and mentioned God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:15). Just what Bible is she reading?

Anyway, it wouldn’t matter if Jesus was silent on the subject. Christian theology isn’t limited to a red-letter edition of the Gospels. Jesus upheld OT ethics, and he also appointed men to speak on his behalf.

Now let’s transition to black “evangelicals” who plan to vote for Obama.

“I started by explaining that for African Americans, there is a sense of hope no longer being deferred. Instead, hope is at the front door knocking furiously, waiting to see if African Americans will answer. If we open the door, forty million African Americans are going to witness a fellow African American getting the largest slice of the American Dream Pie—a dessert many had hoped to see people of color eat in their lifetime, but the many fell asleep having embraced such promises from afar.”

http://ericredmond.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/how-can-any-christian-african-american-vote-for-obama-throwing-the-race-card-on-an-all-black-table/

In other words, vote for him for the empty symbolism. That’s racist. It’s racial tokenism. Vote for a black—any black. Would Redmond vote for Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe?

Black “evangelicals” would be selling themselves cheap if they cast their vote for empty symbolism.

“As the struggle for social and economic equality has been a struggle for all African Americans, regardless of belief system(s), we all share in the joy when one of our own achieves the (presumptive) nomination for the highest office in the land.”

In other words, if you neighbor wins the lottery, then you win the lottery. Except that you don’t. If you neighbor wins the lottery, he gets the big fat check, not you. You’re exactly where you were before he won.

So this is more empty symbolism.

“An office that has been reserved for white males only until now.”

I wouldn’t say the presidency is been “reserved” for white males only until now. Running Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for president isn’t much of a test.

“Obama’s candidacy would allow all African Americans to say to our forefathers, “we finally did it!’…”

More empty symbolism. Your forefathers can’t hear you. They’re dead and buried.

“Hope, yea victory, is finally here! We are equal at the highest level!”

That’s an illusion. If Obama is elected, it will be white votes that put him over the top. His success or failure still depends on white power.

“If we take DuBois’ musings as an accurate analysis of African American existence, we can see another factor involved in Christian African Americans’ support of Obama: identity.”

Which has nothing to do with Christian identity.

“We now have a candidate who we think identifies with the experience of African Americans.”

No, he identifies with his white Ivy League professors.

“He has experienced the struggle of the great-great-great-grandchildren of slaves (even though he is not one).”

No, he experienced affirmative action.

“So surely, it is supposed, he will fight for policies and programs that will be sensitive to the plight of his people and that work toward uplifting the entire race of people.”

Social programs don’t uplift black Americans. They hold them down.

“To the place where the playing field is level.”

In what sense is the playing field tilted?

“Surely, as one of us, he will sign into law measures that will protect the gains made during the Civil Rights and post-Civil Rights Eras.”

If Obama loses, will the South reinstate Jim Crow? I don’t think so.

“Because he is one of us, we have hope that we will no longer have to look at ourselves through the contemptuous eyes of others—i.e., white Americans.”

Do white Americans look with contempt on black Americans? That’s a pretty sweeping statement.

“We now can look at ourselves through the eyes of the man who could hold the most well-known office in the free-world, and he can look at the world through our eyes.”

This, too, is racist. It reflects a racial inferiority complex. A need for symbolic affirmation.

I’ve never voted for president to validate my personal identity. I’ve never seen myself through the eyes of my president. I never saw myself through the eyes of Bill Clinton.

The implication of Redmond’s statement is that black Americans need to prove themselves to themselves, prove themselves to white Americans, and prove themselves to the world.

Once again, that’s a racist sentiment. It reflects a racial inferiority complex.

If you really think you’re equal, then you have nothing to prove. No one to impress. You’re secure in your own identity.

“For African Americans, to deny Obama would then be, in some sense, to deny one’s own identity.”

In other words, any black American who doesn’t vote for Obama is a traitor. What does this say about Redmond’s priorities?

And how does his attitude differ from the attitude of a Klansman? What’s the difference between white identity politics and black identity politics?

For example, Bobby Jindal is a rising star in the GOP. Would it be a denial of my white identity to vote for an East Indian American? Why should racial identity—whether mine or his—even be a consideration?

“Being able to see the potential for mutual embracing of identities in a candidate further means that African Americans will not feel the need to settle on the candidate who represents the lesser of two evils.”

Only if racial identity trumps Christian identity or moral identity.

“By common consent, many African Americans feel that their votes are taken for granted by one major political party, and only courted as tokenism by the other major party.”

There’s some truth to that. It’s a vicious cycle. Republicans ignore most black candidates because most black candidates are liberal. Most black candidates ignore the GOP in return.

We need movement in both directions. The GOP should seek out talented conservative “minorities” while talented conservative “minorities” should seek out the GOP.

“The votes do not result in policy changes that benefit African Americans as a whole no matter which party’s candidate wins office.”

Conservative policies benefit every race.

“An Obama candidacy immediately changes the hopeless feelings of resignation as the fall approaches.”

“Feelings.”

“Higher than average African American attendance at the polls in November could be a reflection of the joy brought on by the ability to pick a candidate without mental or emotional reservation and resignation.”

But they should have mental reservations about Obama. Indeed, that’s an understatement.

“An Obama nomination looks like a nomination for social justice – far more than does a nomination for someone from the other party.”

What social injustice does Redmond think black Americans are still enduring?

“If the Illinois senator will carry both white and Black voters in November, unlike Democratic candidates from other ethnicities, he will not be able to make promises to African Americans without accountability to keep his promises.”

My that’s credulous. White politicians lie to white voters all the time. Why would a black candidate be any different?

“Instead, he will be under pressure not to let his people down judicially. He will have to reject policies that stand against the Democratic version of racial progress, and he will have to sign into law policies that stand for such progress.”

What current policies stand in the way of blacks?

“They expect social and economic justice policies to find favor with this candidate, for Affirmative Action to be strengthened, for racial profiling and racial inequities in the legal systems to be brought into account and see diminishing statistics, and for ‘equal justice for all’ to be more than words on the halls of justice.”

You know, this way of casting the issue makes it sound as if we have an all-black underclass under the heel of an all-white government.

Last time I checked, there were black judges, black big-city majors, black big-city councilmen, black big-city police chiefs in charge of an integrated police force, &c. Who's oppressing whom?

“An Obama presidency would portray justice in another odd sort of way. Akin to the issue of hope above, his election would be seen as vindication. It would have a self-correcting effect on the errors of America’s history, with its sins of chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws.”

We’ve already corrected those errors.

“And ongoing civil injustices.”

Such as?

“What greater way is there for African Americans in turn to say, ‘We have overcome!”

I can think of a greater way. What about raising your kids in two-parents homes. Helping them with their homework so that they graduate from high school. Things like that.

“What an Obama in the White House would do for African Americans is allow us to feel.”

To “feel.”

“We can say, ‘Now this country is going to treat us equally, fairly, justly’.”

“Now”? Redmond is a pretty successful man in his own right to feel so victimized.

Does Barack Obama look like a victim of social injustice to you? Does his wife look like a victim of social injustice to you? If that’s the face of social injustice, it’s pretty lucrative.

“The above thoughts do not make a judgment on whether Christian African Americans should or should not vote for Obama.”

Of course it’s a judgment on Christian black Americans who don’t vote for him. Redmond just implied that any black American who doesn’t vote for Obama is a traitor to the black race.

“The intention of this work is only to offer some reasons that explain why Christian African Americans might vote for Obama in the fall.”

But notice that he didn’t give any Christian reasons. Not a single one.

“It does not address the suggested contradiction between voting for a pro-choice candidate and claiming to be a voter who holds a pro-life position. Personally, I think that sanctity of life issues only deal with one of ten areas of sin in the Decalogue, so they are not to be elevated above all of the other prohibitions and commandments.”

To begin with, he keeps harping on slavery. But weren’t the abolitionists single-issue politicians? Slavery was just one issue.

And what about the 10 Commandments? Is Obama any better on the other 9 commandments?

By belonging to one of the most liberal Christian denominations, Obama violated the 1st commandment.

By belonging to a church that advocated black liberation theology, Obama violated the 2nd commandment. He idolizes racial identity.

So does Redmond. Redmond idolizes Obama. He talks about Obama the way followers of Father Divine used to take about their leader.

Violation of the 3rd commandment was a crime in the Mosaic law. Does Obama intend to criminalize blasphemy? No.

Does Obama intend to restore the blue laws? No. So much for the 4th commandment.

BTW, I’m not saying if the 10 commandments should be enacted into law. I’m just measuring Obama by the yardstick which Redmond handed me.

Does Obama support the 5th commandment? No. He supports the welfare state. The welfare state doesn’t honor parents. To the contrary, the welfare state denies parental authority. It supplants parental authority. It usurps the role of the parent.

What about the 6th commandment? Redmond already concedes that Obama’s policies violate this command.

And that’s especially ironic. Redmond harps on racial identity, yet abortion is a form of racial genocide. Redmond harps on racial identity as long as we exclude black babies from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What about the 7th commandment? Adultery was a capital offense in the Mosaic law. Does Obama intend to execute adulterers? I don’t think so.

Again, I’m not saying if he should or shouldn’t. Just seeing if he measures up to Redmond’s yardstick.

What about the 8th commandment? The welfare state is a form of theft. Coercive income redistribution.

What about the 9th commandment? Our current judicial system isn’t designed to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty. It’s only concerned with the rights of the accused, even when that involves the suppression of probative evidence.

Does Obama plan to rectify that situation? Not that I heard.

What about the 10th commandment? But the welfare state is predicated on envy. Class warfare. It institutionalizes the sin of covetousness—unless, of course, you’re a rich liberal politician, in which case you shelter your major assets and overtax the middle class.

So Obama flunks every one of the Ten Commandments.

Eric Redmond is a black man first and a Christian second—which is no kind of Christian at all.

Girly-girl universalism

I’ve been allowing the comments to pile up over at Gregory MacDonald’s before I respond. Let’s look at what his commenters have to say:

Bobby said...

“The way Steve treats Rachel...he'd better be glad Christian Universalism is true!”

Actually, I treat Rachel the same way I treat Jason Pratt or some of the other commenters. So why does Bobby single out Rachel? Because she’s a woman?

In other words, he’s a sexist. He thinks that women are the weaker sex. Need to be handled like a fragile piece of porcelain. Women break so easily, ya know! Does Bobby belong to one of those polygamist Mormon cults where women know their place?

This also illustrates the chasm between universalist rhetoric and universalist practice. Why would Bobby be posting supportive comments on a universalist blog unless he’s a universalist? If so, what does that thesis entail?

What if something really bad happened to Rachel? What if Rachel were gang-raped? Then left in a dumpster for dead? According to universalism, God would be unjust or unloving or both if he didn’t save each and every one of her assailants.

If Bobby is this hypersensitive to mere words, what does this say about his universalism if it ever made contact with real evil? Personal, palpable evil?

The average universalist is about as convincing as Angelina Jolie as a kickboxing superheroine.

The Christian Heretic said...

“I went to read his response to your response but his attitude and name calling turned me right off.”

Here’s another case in point. Christian Heretic is put off by my tone and attitude. He wants to have a nice, dainty, lady-like dialogue about universalism.

Yet he thinks that God is going to save everyone. God is going to save all the serial killers.

If he’s put off by my tone and attitude, don’t you think he’d find the tone and attitude of the average serial killer a tad off-putting?

The universalist professes to be infinitely tolerant and loving in theory, but the very same universalist is remarkably intolerant in practice. He talks in loving abstractions about loving everyone, but his threshold for actually dealing with all the people he talks about so lovingly is amazingly low when he actually has to talk with them.

Imagine if the Christian Heretic were a POW in the Bataan Death March. If he’s put off by my tone and attitude, how would he ever cope with his captors? You know, Japanese soldiers who sodomized, bayoneted, beheaded, or disemboweled their prisoners?

If you’re going to be a universalist, then you’re not entitled to be such a sissy about how people address you. You don’t get to pick and choose. You have to love everyone, remember? You have to forgive everyone, remember? No exceptions!

The universalist extends a plenary pardon to everyone who—conveniently enough—never harmed him, but bursts into tears at a verbal pinprick. It would be instructive to see our yuppie universalists leave their gated communities and spend some quality time with Vlad the Impaler.

If they react this way to merely verbal abuse (as they deem it), how would they ever apply their touchy-feely rhetoric to a real world situation should they ever found themselves strapped to a table surrounded by sharp implements?

Oliver Harrison said...

“Well I always thought the OT had a patchy and/or developing theology of the afterlife, let alone of an eschataological soteriology. Therefore for the OT not to contain an explicit account of the final revelation of universalism is surely to be expected?”

It’s not a question of what we’d expect. In making his case for universalism, MacDonald has a chapter on the OT. He brought it up, not me. And his chapter ends with the admission that the OT doesn’t teach universalism. I’m merely drawing attention to his own admission at this point. It’s relevant because he made it relevant by including a chapter on the OT in a book designed to prove universalism.

Incidentally, I don’t agree with Harrison or MacDonald. I don’t think the OT is silent on the question of universalism. Rather, it’s negative on the question of universalism. But I was accepting MacDonald’s admission for the sake of argument.

Harrison’s comment is also deceptive. In my review, I did more than merely point out MacDonald’s concession. Rather, I also noted examples in which the OT uses universalistic language even though, in other places, the scope of salvation is clearly limited to a subset of humanity. Therefore, you can’t infer universalism from universalistic language. The language is hyperbolic.

“Anyway, I savaged ‘Pierced For Our Transgressions’ (a massive pro-penal substitution magnum opus peddling the li(n)e: ‘Jesus was punished for our sins and bore the wrath of God on the cross’ ), and only got good mail from that review (which was also in Anvil, so also read by evangelicals).”

That’s a very revealing window into universalism, don’t you think? Harrison boasts about “savaging” the belief that “Jesus was punished for our sins and bore the wrath of God on the cross.”

I mean, what more do we really need to say?

gene said...

“Concerning the response that the worst thing you can do is make soemone think they can be saved when they can't seems to me a bit problematic. I never devoloped from the EU (througout the book), the idea that you can do whatever you like and God is ok with it… So his premise to me seems to be a bit off target.”

Gene’s response is so illiterate that it’s hard to tell what he’s trying to say, but his reading level seems to be on par with his writing level. Did I impute to universalism the position that “you can do whatever you like and God is ok with it”? No.

This is what I actually said: “Convince him that no matter what he thinks or does in this life, God will save him in the world to come.”

Continuing:

“In other words Mcdonald said this w/o scoping that God would torture your children in front of you. Scripture simply states nothing of the sort.”

Did I ever say God would torture your children in front of you? No.

This is what I actually said: “Here’s a question: what’s the worst thing you could possibly do to a person? Torture one family member in front of another family member? That’s one of the worst things you can do to a person. But not the worst thing.”

Nothing here about “God” torturing anyone.

“So when scripture reads God deals with the individual then yes mcdonald is right, the worst thing he could do is totrue you.”

I wasn’t discussing the worst thing that “God” can to you. I was discussing the worst thing that you can do to your fellow man.

And the worst thing you can do to your fellow man is to nurse in him the false hope that no matter what he thinks or does in this life, God will save him in the next.

For sheer cruelty, nothing matches that damnable illusion. Instead of warning your fellow man of the worst possible fate, you encourage him to pursue a hellbound path until it’s too late to reverse course. No earthly atrocity comes close to such a vicious and malicious lie.

“Classic tranditionalism.”

I didn’t appeal to “tradition” in my review of MacDonald’s book. And it also depends on how you define “traditionalism.” Dante has a “traditional” view of hell, but that’s not the view that I’m defending.

“In steves response questioning ‘divine justice’ it seems to me to be very problematic on how God punished an innocent man. The classic view on the atonement plays a role in that most christians (that I know of) hold the view that God took his wrath out on Jesus so we (who approach by faith) might not receive his punishement of sin. So on divine justice I feel steve owes a clearer definition on ‘divine justice’. If God's divine justice means it's perfect and always right then when does divine justice act in a way that a just person gets punished, namely Jesus on the cross. Seems to me that ‘divine’ needs to be defined and defended in order to accuse one of not holding to divine views. If you are guilty of not embracing divine justice and divine mercy (not embracing law of gospel) then how does it fit his paradigm of justice.”

Several issues:

i) Both Gene and Harrison are right about one thing: There’s more to univeralism than merely extending penal substitution to everyone. Rather, universalism presents a very different theory of the atonement. It commits you to making many fundamental readjustments in your theological system.

ii) I was responding to MacDonald. MacDonald professes to be a Christian. And he tries to defend his position from Scripture (as well as reason).

When I’m responding to a professing believer who claims to honor the authority of Scripture, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to defend a Biblical doctrine like penal substitution. It should be sufficient that Scripture teaches penal substitution.

Now, if you want to challenge the exegetical basis for penal substitution, that’s a different issue. But Gene isn’t raising an exegetical objection. He’s raising a moralistic objection.

iii) Of course, Jesus is more that just an innocent man. Jesus is also the divine judge and lawgiver. It’s remarkable when the judge and lawgiver assumes the role of the defendant.

iv) Even on intuitive grounds, I don’t find anything objectionable about the vicarious principle. That’s the fundamental element of human friendship.

A friend does something for a friend of a friend as a favor to his friend. The friend of the friend is not his friend. But he does it for the sake of his friend, as if the friend of his friend were his friend.

v) How can a universalist be so squeamish about penal substitution? Here’s a guy who tells us that God is duty bound to save every psychopath who ever skinned his fellow man alive. Why is he offended by penal substitution when he’s not offended by universal salvation?

vi) Finally, I’ve always thought there was something uniquely ungrateful about sinners who impugn penal substitution. It’s like a gunshot victim who challenges the paramedic to explain what right he has to treat the victim. Why should a paramedic feel that he’s under some obligation to justify his treatment of the victim to the victim? If the victim doesn’t feel that the paramedic is entitled to treat him, then let him bleed to death.

When sinners presume to impugn penal substitution, they aggravate their guilt. Ingrates like Gene and Harrison richly deserve the worst. Nothing could be more damnable than to impugn vicarious atonement. You might as well shoot the paramedic.

LVKA Has Been Banned

For some examples of the behavior that resulted in his banning, see here and here.