Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Dave ... let's try to put things into perspective

I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, certainly in response to some not-so-good-natured ribbing, richly enhanced with exaggerations and enhancements of its own. But Roman Apologists will make every excuse to maintain Roman infallibility, while excusing "the Church" for any and every one of its officially egregious behaviors over the centuries.

[Note: I have consulted with a number of people, including my Pastor, and the general sense was to remove the item in question; I have removed it, while leaving everything else the same. Both Scripture and Francis Schaeffer were quoted: Romans 12:17-20 "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."


"We must not minimize this love we are commanded to have to all men as our neighbors, simply because there is a clear distinction in the Bible between our love to all men, as neighbors, and our love to our brothers in Christ...This love for men is not to be just a banner, not just a slogan, but it should show itself in practical ways in our lives.  Our acts and our utterances in our contacts with men should show this love.  We should show it by kindness in the small and large things of our daily living.  The rule is that we should do to others as we desire that they should do to us.  This should show itself in our dealings with those in our own organizations, in our dealings with those of other organizations with which we do not agree, and with unbelievers as well.  We should deal fairly with men, including those who are our enemies for the Gospel's sake.  True love results in fair dealing, in care that we deal with scrupulous honesty toward all men, both in the ordinary walks of life and in the field of Christian battle.  Our walk should be such that even a blasphemer must know inwardly that we have dealt fairly with him.  Rightness and love must go hand in hand or there is no real power." - Francis Schaeffer


There were some questions on Dave's blog as to why I would put a mustache on a woman. The photo above is reproduced exactly as it appears on Dave's site. Maybe God has his own sense of humor. As far as the "Good Pope John" quote is concerned, see the actual source below.]

Roman Catholic evasiveness is truly staggering. Some time ago, I ran a series, discussing David Kertzer's "The Popes Against the Jews", which itself was a response to "The Holy See's" document "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah"; in order to wash its hands of any guilt with respect to the Jewish people, (which it can’t do), it must hang its hat on the nonsensical distinction between “religious anti-Judaism,” which is the term Rome uses to define its own posture toward the Jews over the centuries, and a “racially-motivated anti-Semitism,” which is says are “based on theories contrary to the constant teaching of the Church”.

Links to this Post

The Popes against the Jews, Part 1, links to and provides long selections from William Rubinstein’s review of David Kertzer’s work by this title, in “First Things”. Rubinstein does not contest the factual nature of what Kertzer presents. “Kertzer skillfully and not unsubtly traces the differences in attitude towards the Jews among the Popes between about 1740 and 1940,” he says. Rather, Rubinstein faults Kertzer’s piece for being ”The Case for the Prosecution”. In other words, “he wasn’t nice to us.”

Quick: What's the difference between "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Judaism? See how one well-respected Roman Catholic writer absolves Rome completely of the former, while shifting any official blame for anti-Jewish attitudes to "the sons and daughters of the Church", in The Popes against the Jews, Part 2. Even though the Catholic Church had for centuries rounded up the Jews, forced them to live in ghettos and to identify themselves by wearing yellow badges on their clothing, and even though this activity conditioned 20th century Europeans not to be alarmed when Jews did get rounded up and herded off in this way, at least official Roman Catholic teaching never specifically identified ‘a final solution’.

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. The Vatican reports: "in the 19th century, a false and exacerbated nationalism took hold. In a climate of eventful social change, Jews were often accused of exercising an influence disproportionate to their numbers. Thus there began to spread in varying degrees throughout most of Europe an anti-Judaism that was essentially more sociological and political than religious." But what the Vatican fails to report is that it was a pope, and a work sanctioned by a pope, (approved of and distributed by the Vatican’s own theological journal – and reprinted with the explicit approval of the pope at the time) and a report by the “Holy Office of the Inquisition”, that made these charges, that led to this “sociological and political” anti-Semitism.

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews. Read actual Roman Catholic Conciliar Documents, written at the height of papal religious and political power, in which "we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress."

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” "Unfortunately for the Jews, one of Carnival’s [that is, the public celebrations prior to Lent] most popular features was the ritual degradation of the people of the ghetto. Among the first historical references we have to such rites is a description from 1466, when for the amusement of the Romans, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by [Pope] Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations."



Exorcising the Cartesian demon



Since Roger Olson trotted out the issue of Cartesian demons in reference to Calvinism, I’ll say a little more about it. The Cartesian demon is one of those sceptical thought-experiments like the brain-in-the-vat.

But a fundamental problem with this thought-experiment is that it’s ultimately otiose. An exercise in self-stultifying futility. Suppose the argument is successful. Then what?

Suppose I might be living in a complete, unfalsifiable illusion? Well, since, ex hypothesi, there’s nothing I can do in that situation to break the spell, I have no choice but to go right on living in my illusion as if it’s real. The thought-experiment gives me no alternative. 

So what does the thought-experiment accomplish? It’s not something I can act on. For its truth or falsity is empirically equivalent. The Cartesian demon is consistent with my being an atheist, idealist, Calvinist, Confucian, Arminian, Mambo, headhunter, or what have you. You can plug every conceivable position into the Cartesian demon, which translates every claim and counterclaim into the identity of indiscernibles.

Either the hypothetical is true or false. If true, there’s nothing I can do to disprove it, so it has no impact on what I think or do one way or the other. If true, it makes no difference what I think of the Cartesian demon.

The illusion is indetectible, so I’m condemned to live the same way whether it’s true or false. But if it’s false, then I don’t need to disprove it since, in that event, I’m not trapped in an illusion.

If it’s true, I can’t disprove it–but if it’s false, I don’t have to. Therefore, the Cartesian demon is a thought-experiment I can ignore with total equanimity. Nothing gained, nothing lost. 

A three-hanky

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theologian-peter-enns-talks-about-why-biologos-did-not-renew-his-contract/

Reassessing Cain

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/284371

Francis Beckwith's magic carpet ecclesiology


Francis J. Beckwith says:

You have this great gift, the Bible, because of scribes–all of whom resided in Catholic monastaries for nearly a millenium–who carefully, cautiously and devoutly copied the manuscripts of Scripture. These copies were preserved and protected for generations. The Church’s first complete Bible, the Latin Vulgate, was translated by St. Jerome, a Catholic priest.


i) Why does Beckwith imagine that’s inconsistent with Protestant theology? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Protestantism is true. The true God is the God of Protestant theism.

Is there some reason to think the Protestant God wouldn’t use medieval monks to copy the Bible?

ii) Medieval monks weren’t transcribing the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT. They didn’t know Greek or Hebrew. They could only transcribe the Vulgate. That’s better than nothing, but that’s not what Protestants rely on.

iii) Of course, Jerome espoused the Jewish canon, so that’s a double-edged sword.

iv) You can’t retroactively validate modern Catholicism by appealing to a 5C church father. Jerome knew nothing of the Medieval papacy, or the Renaissance papacy, or Trent, or Vatican I, or Vatican II, and so on and so forth.

v) The Vulgate also canonizes some passages (e.g. the Pericope Adulterae; the Long Ending of Mark) which even modern Catholic Bible scholars regard as inauthentic.

vi) Apropos (v), has the Magisterium instructed the faithful on which Bible MSS we should use when translating the Bible? What’s the authoritative text of Scripture? What edition of the Greek and Hebrew Bible does the Vatican currently endorse? Does the Roman curia have a magisterial office devoted to that task?

My Cartesian demon is better 'un yer Cartesian demon!

According to Roger Olson:
This pops up every time a Calvinist points the finger at me and cries “Where’s your exegesis?” as if exegesis is the solution to everything.  If only it were. And I agree it is the solution to some things.  In other words, there are cases where people are simply practicing bad exegesis and hermeneutics and arriving at blatantly wrong interpretations of scripture. But I suspect many of our disagreements about scripture have more to do with blik than objective exegesis. I know that no exegesis could convince me that God is a monster.  If I thought it possible that God is a monster there would be no point in doing exegesis because a monster cannot be trusted.

i) Olson is conflating two distinct issues:

a) What does the text assert to be the case?

b) Does that textual assertion correspond to reality?

If (arguendo) Scripture teaches the existence of a monstrous God, and Olson doesn’t believe in the existence of a monstrous God, that would at most mean the Biblical passage is false, not that the exegesis is false.

ii) Olson is alluding to the Cartesian demon. But if the Cartesian demon did exist, he might get his kicks out of inspiring a Bible that teaches Arminian theology, even though the real God is monstrous. The Cartesian demon might get his jollies out of dictating those Wesleyan hymns about God’s universal love, or Christ’s universal atonement, to beguile the credulous into believing that’s what awaits them–only to lower the boom when they die. 

It seems to me that SOME Christians view the Bible as divine. That is, they regard it so highly that they put it on the same level with God himself in terms of authority. This is what Brunner meant when he accused fundamentalists and evangelicals of treating the Bible as a “paper pope.” But I would go further and say that some Christians treat it as if it were God himself or somehow participated in the divine essence. This appears when people say they would believe whatever the Bible said EVEN IF it said God is a monster.

Of course, Olson is imputing to them his twisted interpretation of what that would mean if Scripture taught Calvinism.

Then I know they are investing too much faith in scripture and not enough in the God who inspired scripture.

But that’s clearly a false dichotomy.

In my opinion, they are flirting with bibliolatry. From my perspective, anyway, scripture is the divinely inspired, infallible witness to God; it identifies God for us. But I only believe that because through it I “hear my Master’s voice” (to use another metaphor from Brunner).

It’s revealing that Olson has so little confidence in Arminian exegesis. If the true God is Arminian; if the Arminian God inspired the Bible, why does Olson need this ace in the hole?

After all, there are quite a few competent Arminian Bible scholars, viz. Ben Witherington, John Hartley, John Oswalt, C. K. Barrett, I. H. Marshall, Joel Green, Grant Osborne, Scot McKnight, Brian Abasciano. If the Bible teaches Arminianism, then don’t they enjoy an insurmountable advantage over Reformed exegetes? They were dealt a winning hand.

It’s a backdoor admission on Olson’s part that he has so little faith in the witness of Scripture to Arminian theology. Otherwise, why prepare this escape route?

My experience of WHO GOD IS is not limited to scripture; I have unmediated experience of God as good that convinces me that scripture is God’s Word–the oracle of God.

But if God really were monstrous, if the Cartesian demon actually exists then wouldn’t the Cartesian demon take sadistic delight in snookering Olson by giving him a delusive spiritual experience? Olson wouldn’t know what hit him until it was too late.

When I look at scripture I see it “as” the testimony to the God who I experience also outside of it. The experience I have of God outside of scripture does not communicate doctrines, but it does “speak” to me of God through my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit within me. But that experience always points me back TO scripture as God’s written self-communication for understanding him more fully. Nothing in my experience of God contradicts scripture; that’s not even possible. But neither is God the prisoner of scripture.

But in this life, we know Christ by description, not experience. We're not the twelve disciples. 

So what is the blik difference I’m talking about here?  Some evangelicals seem to see experience of God as always mediated through scripture which, from my perspective, seems to incline them toward bibliolatry. This is why they say they would believe God is a monster (or the author of evil or whatever) IF scripture said so. Other evangelicals (like I) seem to see experience of God as BOTH mediated by scripture AND as unmediated with the latter as primary in terms of knowing God’s character as good.

i) I don’t even know what Olson means by an “unmediated” experience of God. To say we can experience God outside of Scripture doesn’t mean our extrascriptural experience of God is immediate. Rather, it would simply be mediated by something else.

If God subsists outside of time and space, then we can never experience God directly, as he is in himself. Rather, we can only experience God as he discloses himself through various spatial and temporal media. Even inspired visions and dreams convey the experience of God through a temporal process, with interior dialogue or simulated imagery. It’s adapted to a creaturely mode of subsistence.

ii) Speaking for myself, I experience God’s providence in my life through the lens of Scripture. I use his word to interpret his work.

Certainly I can experience God outside of Scripture. Ordinary providence is one way we experience God–everyday and every hour. But providence alone is often ambiguous. 

When I got saved I was not converted to the Bible; I was converted to the God of Jesus Christ.  THEN I found more about God through the Bible and believed in it BECAUSE it told me about the God of Jesus Christ I encountered in conversion and in my pesonal relationship with him. My experience of God is both unmediated and mediated and the two are inseparable.

i) How does he experience Jesus outside of Scripture? Does Jesus appear to him in visions? Does Jesus speak to him in dreams and apparitions? What is Olson talking about, exactly?

ii) Moreover, we need a benchmark to judge the veridicality or inveridicality of religious experience. If the Bible is not our benchmark, what is?

But when I open the Bible to read and study it I NEVER do so as a tabula rasa–prepared to believe whatever it might say EVEN IF it says (in some passage I had henceforth never noticed) that God is a monster who might hate me and want the worst for me or who loves his own glory more than he loves me (and all of us). If I am tempted to believe that, I go to God and rediscover him in unmediated experience of him through Jesus Christ or at least remember those times when my heart was strangely warmed and I KNEW without any ability to doubt that God loves me and wants the best for me and does not hate me or love his glory at the expense of my (or anyone else’s) well being in its most profound sense (wholeness).

Unless the Cartesian demon is the nefarious source of his strangely heart-warming experience.

This is my perspective on experiencing God. People experienced God before there was a Bible and have experiences of God apart from the Bible.  But the Bible fills experience of God with cognitive content. But it cannot contradict the God I know as good through my unmediated experience of Jesus Christ because the only reason I believe the Bible is because it is THAT GOD’s WORD. In and through it I hear my Master’s voice in a unique way–as communicating himself to me in a cognitive way, filling my unmediated experience of God with information.  But that information cannot contradict the very pre-cognitive experience of God as unqualifiedly good that I had in my conversion and have in my post-conversion relationship with Jesus Christ.

This statement is incoherent. If his extrascriptural experience lacks cognitive content, then, indeed, the Bible can’t contradict his noncognitive experience inasmuch as there is nothing to contradict. A noncognitive experience is consistent with any proposition.

It seems to me that this is a fundamental watershed between evangelicals. Those of us in the Pietist tradition claim unmediated experience of God that authenticates scripture to us but makes it impossible to see scripture as proving that God is evil or the author of sin and evil or loves his own glory more than he loves people created in his own image and likeness. Those evangelicals in the Protestant scholastic tradition at least claim to experience God only through scripture and at least say they would believe the Bible even if it said God is a monster, the author of sin and evil, who loves his own glory to the extent that it causes him to hate some of the creatures created in his own image and likeness.

Don’t cult leaders also appeal to their unmediated experience of God? Doesn’t that supply the prism through which they interpret the Bible? Take Swedenborg, Helen Schucman, or the Münsterites.

No amount of arguing or crying “exegesis!” is going to solve this blik dilemma, this continental divide among evangelicals. To be perfectly blunt, I shudder when I encounter people who seem to me to be worshiping scripture to that extent–that there is no unmediated experience of God outside of scripture. I shake my head and wonder about their spirituality even as I continue to embrace them as fellow evangelicals (even if they reject me as one to them).

Reminds of what Peter Hitchens says about his brother’s inner promptings:

Christopher describes how at the age of nine he concluded that his teacher’s claim that the world must be designed was wrong. "I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong."
At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection.
It’s my view that he still doesn’t know all that much about this interesting dispute. Yet at the age of nine, he "simply knew" who had won one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind.
It is astonishing, in one so set against the idea of design or authority in the universe, how often he appeals to mysterious intuitions and "innate" knowledge of this kind...

Oregon and the Death Penalty

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/284275

Gingrich and Immigration

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/284245

Some humorous and instructive comments from the Dave Armstrong thread


Now that Dave has closed comments in the thread, “How Anti-Catholics ‘Argue’: Example #4625: John Bugay Resurrects Luther’s Excrement Fetish in His Rush to Insult Myself and My Readers”, and following up on this post of my own, I thought I’d take a page out of Steve’s book and post some of my own comments from this thread, as well as some instructive and entertaining comments from other folks whose comments deserve to stand alone.

Paul Hoffer said... 

Monday, November 28, 2011

Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c.1590-1640

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198201847.001.0001/acprof-9780198201847

Bearing witness

John 3:16 Teddy Bear

Hell on Wheels

I’ve been watching the AMC series Hell on Wheels. It has a varied cast of characters, played by fine character actors. It’s nice to see Colm Meaney finally given a real acting role, after falling into the black hole of a Star Trek engineer. 

The series has a Christian motif, although it remains to be seen how that will be developed. There’s an abolitionist turned evangelist–the Rev. Nathaniel Cole. He mentors a Cheyenne convert to the faith–Joseph Black Moon.

I expect Black Moon is doomed. He’s shunned by both the whites and the Indians. My best guess is he will revert after he becoming bitterly disillusioned. The screenwriters will probably kill his mentor, which Black Moon will be unable to forgive. We’ll see.

I have forebears on my father’s side of the family who fought for the Union, as well as forebears on my mother’s side of the family who fought for the Confederacy, so watching a show like this makes me ponder what life was like back in the day.

Although I doubt the show is altogether realistic, I think it illustrates how truly grueling life was back then for so many. How hard it was just to survive.

Nowadays we have pampered men and women who profess the Christian faith for a time, then turn their back on the faith when they suffer some personal tragedy or mere disappointment.

It’s important to remember that our Christian ancestors expected life on earth to be one long grind. They didn’t nurse any illusions about what life in a fallen world has to offer.

If you and I are better off, that’s one more thing to be thankful for. But it’s not a given. 

The Papacy’s Missing Link


One of the more remarkable documents that I have not been able to track down, because it does not seem to be available in English, is Rudolf Pesch’s, Simon-Petrus, Gechicte un geschichtliche Bedeutung des ersten Jungers Jesu Christi (Stuutgart, 1980). I would love to read this work.

Robert Eno, S.S. did read and comment on it. He said:

Pesch concludes, among other things, that neither the story of the historical Peter nor the image of Peter in the later New Testament traditions is of immediate importance for the primacy of the Roman bishops. Indeed, later references back to Peter in the New Testament, primarily Matthew 16:18, may sometimes appear almost to be an afterthought. For Pesch, an issue such as a general leadership of the Church is an open question. Even if Peter is conceived as a sort of leader among the Twelve, whether his “Petrine office,” if there was such a thing, had successors is also an open question. Even if one could argue for such a successor on the basis of the New Testament text, there remains the most elusive and fascinating question of all: is there a missing link in the first and second centuries between the historical peter and a bishop of Rome conceived of as a successor to him? (From Robert Eno, S.S., “The Rise of the Papacy”,pgs 15-16)

A while back I wrote a fairly extensive series on House Churches in first century Rome. I cited a number of authors, including Peter Lampe, William Lane, Robert Jewett, F.F. Bruce, and others, all writing on the house church network and the various roles of elders in and among these groups of early Christians.

This series – and other things I’ve reported on – documents the “missing link” – what was actually there in place of the grandiose stories of the early papacy that Rome bandied about for centuries.

In support of the “new” history of the nonexistent early papacy that we have, The Shepherd of Hermas is one of the best contemporary second-century Roman documents that we have access to. In his Introduction to this work, Michael W. Holmes (“The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition”, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, pg 442) writes:

The Shepherd of Hermas is one of the more enigmatic documents to have survived from the postapostolic period. Relatively simple in style and widely popular in the second and third centuries (there are more surviving early copies of The Shepherd than of many canonical writings), it stands as an important witness to the state of Christianity in Rome in the early to mid-second century. Expressing Jewish Christian theological perspective by means of imagery, analogies, and parallels drawn from Roman society and culture, The Shepherd reflects the efforts of its author(s) to deal with the questions and issues … of great significance and concern to him and to that part of the Christian community in Rome to which he belonged. 

Please note that Hermas, author of “Shepherd of Hermas”, lived and wrote in Rome in the first half of the second century. Note *carefully* what he wrote about the leadership of the church at that time:

As I slept, brothers and sisters, a revelation was given to me by a very handsome young man, who said to me, “Who do you think the elderly woman from whom you received the little book was? I said “The Sibyl.” “You are wrong,” he said. “She is not.” Then who is she?” I said. “The church,” he replied. I said to him, “why then is she elderly?” “Because,” he said, “she was created before all things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.”

Afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church.” (Vis 2.4)

Hermas could not be more clear. There is a plurality of presbyters who “preside over” the church at Rome. This is no fuzzy mention, as in Ignatius, of a church in “a place of honor”. This is a primary source document from within the city of Rome that provides support for all of the “scholarship” that some of you decry, the “snippets” which speak of a “gap” in the “unbroken succession within the first century of the church. But this is not all there is. Later, Hermas reiterates the structure of this leadership, and the fact that they are not leading, but rather that they fight among themselves. He calls them “children”.

Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

Roman Catholics often point out much later sources about “papal primacy” and authority. But virtually all of these sources are wrong about the “pope and the scriptures vis-à-vis the origin of the holy Father’s authority”, as one Roman Catholic writer suggested to me. By the time of Augustine, and probably much earlier, the great Roman propaganda machine was well under way, extolling its own glories, its own authority, and why not? It had tremendous amounts of money, a tremendous level of influence within the city and later the surrounding regions.

But, “the Rise of the Papacy”, as Robert Eno, S.S. aptly titled his work, was not “development”. It was an act of conquest. There were armed insurrections. It took centuries. But when you’ve got money, power, and influence, you can “have your way” with a lot of lesser folk.

Hermas already, in the first half of the second century, provides us with a very clear picture of the leadership of the church of Rome at that time. Hermas is chastising the multiple leaders of the church at Rome. This is important to note because Hermas identifies himself as a slave (Vis. 1.1). It will not do to say that this is a group of priests who work for a bishop. The entire group “presides.”

Here, in the leadership of the church of Rome, there are multiple elders who “preside”; they are acting like sorcerers. Already, amidst the persecutions, they exult in their wealth. They take the seats of honor. They want to teach, but they are guilty themselves of having no instruction. They fight among themselves as to who is greatest.

This is very clear writing. Very clear reporting of what the church was like. For those of you who want to understand what the leadership structure of the church at Rome was like, it is hard to find a better primary source witness than Hermas.

There was no “Bishop of Rome” for the first hundred years. After that, Rome supported its own propaganda effort by the “back-fill” method which I’ve called “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”. Look for it, it’s there.

So by the late fourth, early fifth century, its no wonder that you’ve got bamboozled bishops like Augustine, thinking that a pope is something great. Once Augustine is bamboozled, later generations of Roman Catholics use HIM as well, to support the papacy. It all built on itself over the centuries. But it was built on a foundation of Hermas’s elders who fought among themselves over which one of them was greatest. 

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Permission and prevention


According to Roger Olson:

God simply knows the future because it will happen; his knowing future free decisions and actions of creatures does not determine them. Rather that they will happen determines God’s knowing them because God has decided to open himself up to being affected by the world…Simple foreknowledge is simply future vision.

Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, 156-157.

I’ve already commented on some problems this creates for Arminianism:


i) But here’s yet another problem. Arminian theodicy has nailed its mast to the notion of divine permission. If God allows evil (rather than “causing” or decreeing evil), then that’s suppose to be exculpatory.

For reasons I’ve given on various occasions, I don’t think that gets the job done. But even if it did, you’re only in a position to permit what you’re in a position to prevent. You can’t permit the inevitable. You can’t allow the inexorable.

But if God knows what will happen just because it will happen, if that’s the source of his foreknowledge, then evil is thrust upon him. Stoic resignation in the face of ineluctable evil is his portion.

ii) It’s also passing strange that Arminian theology doesn’t allow God to cause or determine certain mental states in human beings, such as saving faith–but it does allow human beings to cause or determine certain mental states in God, such as beliefs about our future actions. 

Arminian conundra

According to Roger Olson:

God simply knows the future because it will happen; his knowing future free decisions and actions of creatures does not determine them. Rather that they will happen determines God’s knowing them because God has decided to open himself up to being affected by the world…Simple foreknowledge is simply future vision.

Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, 156-157.

On the face of it, this explanation generates four interrelated problems for the Arminian:

i) Olson is describing retrocausation. God knows the future because the future is the source of his future knowledge. In that case, God doesn’t know the future because he causes it (or decrees it). Rather, his foreknowledge is a retroactive effect of the future itself.

But this places God in the role of a passive observer rather than an active creator. How can God be the cause of the world if the world is the cause of God’s knowledge thereof? Doesn’t that make the existence of the world oddly independent of God’s creative fiat?

It won’t do to say this confuses the order of knowledge with the order of being, for on Olson’s scenario,the object of knowledge is also the source of knowledge.

ii) Apropos (i), this seems to make the eventuation of the future inevitable or unavoidable. God sees it coming down the pike. And not because of something he did. Rather, he’s on the receiving end.

But isn’t that necessitarian? Doesn’t that make the world metaphysically necessary? Que sera, sera?

iii) This also means that if God enters into dialogue with Abraham or Moses, God knows what they will say, as well as knowing what he will say. So his foreknowledge of that dialogue already includes or contains all his questions or replies. But in that event, it’s a rather stagey conversation. God is giving prepared answers. Reading from the indelible script of his foreseen answers.

But from an Arminian standpoint, isn’t that just as artificial as a predestined dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham or Moses?

iv) If the future causes God’s knowledge of the future, then what’s the point of praying to God–from an Arminian standpoint? God can’t change the outcome if his knowledge is predicated on the outcome. If his foreknowledge takes the outcome for granted, then the outcome is unalterable.

If he foresees what is going to happen because the future causes his prevision, then he can’t prevent the foreseen future from happening. So what does prayer accomplish, from an Arminian perspective? What are we asking God to do?

On simple knowledge, what God knows is not a hypothetical future (i.e. alternate possible timelines), but the actual future.

Why is that acceptable, but predestination is not? At least in predestination, God causes the outcome. Hence, the outcome is open for God. God was free to decree otherwise. He has total control over the end-result. 

Doing business with the devil


I’m going to comment on some statements that Roger Olson makes in response to Paul Helm in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God.

I believe that Helm should simply bite the bullet, so to speak, and admit that his allegedly unreconstructed Calvinist doctrine of God makes God arbitrary and the author of sin and evil (57).

Typically, Olson doesn’t bother to define the offending phrase: “author of sin.”  For instance, the canons of Dordt say “And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger” (Article 15).

Now Arminians think it’s illogical for Calvinists to deny that God is the author of sin. But you’d have to know what Dordt and other early Reformed sources meant by that phrase (in Latin) to know what they were denying. You can’t just substitute your own made-up definition, then accuse Reformed theologians of incoherence.

It is revealing that Arminians consistently overlook something that obvious. This has become a mindless tradition in Arminian polemics, where they unthinkingly repeat each other.

At least from an Arminian perspective, it also makes it difficult to distinguish between God and the devil. God wants some to go to hell, and the devil wants everyone to go to hell (57; cf. 162).

So this is Olson’s reason for saying the Calvinist God is Satanic. That’s what they share in common. They both want people to go to hell. They just differ on the percentages.

Yet this accusation reveals more about Arminianism than Calvinism. When you stop to think about it (which, apparently, Arminians never bother to do), it’s a very odd, subversive accusation.

What’s the purpose of hell? In orthodox theology, hell is where the wicked receive their just deserts.

So does it make sense to say the devil wants everyone to go to hell? What’s that supposed to mean? Does that mean the devil thinks everyone ought to be punished for their sins? But that would mean the devil admits that he himself deserves to be punished for his sins. Yet it seems unlikely that the devil regards hell as just punishment for his sins. Does the devil even believe in retributive punishment?

In what sense is it Satanic to want the wicked to be punished for their sins? From God’s viewpoint, damnation is just. And justice is good.

Ironically, Olson is tacitly assuming the devil’s outlook. I imagine the devil views himself as the wronged party in this transaction. That he got a raw deal. Isn’t that what we’d expect, given his twisted perspective?

So Olson’s allegation boomerangs. It’s his own perspective that has as sulfuric aroma.

And there is no conceivable reason why God destines some to life and others to death…Surely the only option left is divine arbitrariness because, based on Helm’s account, it cannot have anything to do with any decisions or choices persons make that are not rendered certain by God’s all-determining decree and power (57).

That’s a fallacious inference. Of course, to inquire about God’s possible motivation is speculative, but inasmuch as Olson’s objection is equally speculative, we can respond to him on his own level.

Something can be arbitrary in one sense, but not in another. On the one hand we might say grace and mercy are arbitrary inasmuch as the favored parties don't deserve it. And for that reason the benefactor (e.g. God) can rightly give or withhold. 

On the other hand, there can be divine reasons apart from merit which God might have for electing one and reprobating another. Due to historical causation, if God elects Esau and reprobates Jacob (to take one example of many), that will generate a very different timeline with very different consequences down the line. 

God can have reason for preferring one possible timeline over another. Hence, God may elect one individual but reprobate another, not because he necessarily prefers one individual over the other, but because he prefers the outcome.

Furthermore, if God saved the elect unconditionally, why does he not save everyone? Wouldn’t a good and loving God do that? (58).

i) Well, according to Scripture, one mark of divine goodness is to punish the wicked. Once again, isn’t Olson tacitly assuming the devil’s viewpoint when he treats justice as the antithesis of goodness?

ii) As to what a good and loving God would do, we could redirect the question at Arminians. Would a good and loving God allow a girl to become a child prostitute in Bangkok?

No doubt Olson will take refuge in freewill, but what about the freedom of the child prostitute? It’s not as if she freely chose to be a commodity in child sex trafficking.

[Helm’s] God specializes in domination, control and self-glorification… (58).

The notion that God does things for his own glory can be misleading unless we differentiate right and wrong ways of formulating that notion:



…even though the eternal infliction of unimaginable torment on persons who were selected for hell before they were born or did anything good or bad (58).

i) I see no reason to equate retributive punishment with “torment,” much less “unimaginable” torment. Damnation can be punitive without amounting to torment.

Olson’s depiction is probably a throwback to the lurid sermons he heard as a kid. Something he never outgrew.

ii) Olson’s objection has less to do with reprobation than original sin. Yet classical Arminianism affirms original sin. So is he attacking Calvinism, or classical Arminianism?

That they supposedly “deserve it” does nothing to get God off the hook given that his God saved unconditionally (58).

Why does Olson put “deserve it” in scare quotes? And why the adjective “supposedly”? Does he think eternal punishment is a miscarriage of justice? Once more, he seems to be assuming the devil’s view of divine justice as cosmic injustice.

Clearly, he could save everyone. He chooses not to. Why? (58).

When Calvinists say God could save everyone, what they have in mind is that, all things being equal, God could save everyone. However, not all possibilities are logically compossible–even for an omnipotent God.

God may have more than one aim in world history. And taking one aim to a logical extreme may conflict with another aim. For instance, one way to forcibly illustrate the utter gratuity of grace is to save some, but not all. One way of showing that everyone deserves to go to hell is to consign at least some sinners to hell.

In fact, Olson himself is a good example of somebody who just doesn’t get it. Somebody who has yet to learn that lesson.

God’s character is at stake (58).

i) To begin with, God is the best custodian of his own reputation. We dishonor God when we presume to defend God’s honor by inventing our own notion of what’s honorable or dishonorable, then measuring God by that yardstick.

ii) Olson himself constantly maligns the character of God. And it isn’t just Reformed theism. Olson has the same problem with Yahweh. He doesn’t believe Yahweh ordered the judicial execution of the Canaanites. His attitude in that respect doesn’t seem to be materially different from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.