Honor, shame, and imputation

I’m going to evaluate this comment:

http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/05/25/three-big-problems-with-the-atonement/#comment-3432

I’m ignoring it because it’s not relevant. It wasn’t a key argument of mine.

If Zawadi appeals to Rom 2:14-15 as part of his argument, then of course the correct interpretation is relevant. To say that’s irrelevant is a tacit admission that his original argument was irrelevant.

That only became irrelevant when Zawadi belatedly discovered that his interpretation of Rom 2:14-15 is disputed. He certainly didn’t cite Rom 2:14-15 at the outset with the understanding that his appeal was irrelevant. Rather, his initial appeal was shortsighted, and now he’s trying to save face.

There are many Christians who speak about universal moral values and all I simply did was attempt to point to the New Testament as a basis for it. If Steve is the kind of Christian who believes that it is only restricted to gentiles……. Well then fine. That doesn’t affect my argument one bit, since the transfer of moral guilt from the guilty to the innocent remains wrong universally amongst gentiles as well.

To say it remains universally wrong among gentiles once again assumes what he needs to prove.

Seems quite clear to me that this passage is talking about some kind of idea of recognized and shared moral truths.

The onus is not on me to establish the correct interpretation of Rom 2:14-15. Zawadi is the one who cited that passage to prooftext his argument. The onus lies on him to justify his interpretation.

He hasn’t interacted with scholars who challenge his interpretation. He’s not conversant with their arguments.

Obviously Paul taught it, otherwise I wouldn’t be raising the argument in the first place!

In which case, penal substitution is not intuitively wrong to Paul. And Paul is hardly an isolated case.

Yes it does. You yourself Mr. Steve Hays recognize that transferring the moral guilt from the guilty to the innocent is unjust. You only choose to make an exception in the case of Jesus.

I do nothing of the kind.

i) First of all, transitive guilt is just a special case of forensic transference generally.

ii) The atonement of Christ is by no means the only case of this generic principle. Within Scripture we have federal headship, corporate solidarity, and collective guilt. Later generations are blessed or cursed on account of what an earlier generation did, or the actions of a patriarch.

Or take the custom of primogeniture. That’s something the firstborn son enjoys by virtue of his birth-order.

iii) Let’s consider some Islamic examples. Take inheritance. A son inherits the estate as a birthright. It’s not something he earned. Not something he did. Rather, that’s based on his relation to a second party. What his father did.

Take tribal chieftains or caliphs. If you’re the son of the caliph, you are born into a high social position. That’s an ascribed status, not an achieved status. That’s not something you deserve. Rather, that’s based on your relationship to a second party. Because of who your father is, you automatically inherit a high social standing.

In (i-iii), you get the credit or blame for what a second party did. Something is credited to your account apart from your personal actions. What someone else did is functionally attributed to you, as if you yourself did it.

iv) Permit me a personal anecdote. I had an aunt and uncle. My aunt Bess had a cat. My uncle Art was not a cat person. He hated her cat.

She predeceased him. So she left him with the cat. He was stuck with her cat.

After she was gone, what did he do? Did he get rid of the cat? No.

Ever though he couldn’t stand the cat, he kept the cat. Why?  To honor his late wife. Because the cat was special to her, and she was special to him, he treated the cat as if it was his own. He cared for the cat, not because it was his, but because it was hers. Not because it meant anything to him, but because of what his wife meant to him, and what the cat meant to her. He provided for the cat in spite of how he felt about the cat, because of how he felt about his late beloved wife.

That’s an honor-code. He esteemed his wife’s cat because he esteemed his wife. To ditch the cat would dishonor his wife.

First of all, if we are going to be utilizing this kind of logic then that means there exists no universal moral truths in the world today. If we look hard enough we would find people who think racism, murder, rape, child molestation, drug dealing, etc. are okay. Steve providing examples of groups and people VIOLATING these universal moral principles doesn’t mean that he has shown that these principles are not universal.

i) The onus is not on me to disprove the alleged universality of these principles. Zawadi is making the claim. He shoulders the burden of proof.

ii) To assert that penal substitution violates universal moral intuition presumes the existence of a universal moral intuition to be violated in the first place. Zawadi hasn’t begun to establish the existence of a universal moral intuition against penal substitution. He hasn’t even bothered to explain how he’d go about attesting the existence of a universal moral intuition to that effect.

What’s his source of evidence? Clearly he can’t appeal to universal human testimony, for many cultures throughout history practice vicarious sacrifice.

If he’s appealing to intuition, then the only available source of evidence is testimonial evidence. But he doesn’t have anything approaching testimonial evidence commensurate with the scope of his claim. He doesn’t have universal testimonial evidence for a universal moral intuition against penal substitution. Not even close.

And it’s not merely that his claim overshoots the evidence. There’s abundant prima facie evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, your analogy of animal sacrifices is weak. In the case of Jesus, the MORAL GUILT was (allegedly) transferred to Jesus, while animals are not moral agents. The crux of the objection to PTS is that moral GUILT is being transferred away from the GUILTY to the INNOCENT. This is NOT the case with animals that are being sacrificed.

Thirdly, I will concede for the sake of argument that there exists no universal moral principles, the strength of my argument is derived from the fact that CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES understand and relate to the injustice of transferring MORAL GUILT from the guilty to the innocent. They only attempt to make sense of it when it comes to Jesus.

This illustrates the fallacy of question-framing. Zawadi tries to win the debate by framing the issue on his own terms. But why should we submit to his terminology?

For instance, the Bible itself frequently cast the issue in terms of transmissible honor and dishonor. If you honor the Father, you will honor the Son. If you dishonor his Son, you thereby dishonor the Father.

If you honor the Son, you will honor those whom he has sent. If you dishonor those whom he sent, you thereby dishonor the one who sent them.

If you disrespect God’s people, you disrespect their God. Those whom the Son honors, the Father will honor (cf. John 17).

Adam brought dishonor on his posterity. Christ restores the lost honor of the redeemed.

In Scripture, honor and justice are intertwined. If you dishonor God’s name, that’s culpable. You incur guilt.

If honor and dishonor are transferable, so are guilt and shame. Honor can either be an achieved status or an ascribed status. Far from being “exceptional,” this is typical of many ancient cultures as well as Third World cultures.

This is exactly my point. Christians make this exception, yet Steve made no attempt whatsoever in demonstrating how this is a valid argument. Steve hasn’t shown us how it is just and fair that the guilty get to have the opportunity to have their guilt transferred to an innocent person.

i) I didn’t concede that this was exceptional. Rather, I discussed that for the sake of argument.

ii) Once again, it’s not incumbent on me to show that penal substitution is fair and just. There’s no presumption for me to overcome, for Zawadi hasn’t begun to make a case for his claim. He’s been asserting his position rather than arguing for his position.

I as a Muslim surely do recognize that exceptions could be made in times when it comes to particular laws (some of which are exclusive to certain figures as taught in Islam) or how Allah could do things, while not immoral for Him, but for others could be immoral.

But in the case of the PTS, it is different. It is inherently (and not conditionally) unjust to transfer moral GUILT to others.

Notice that Zawadi doesn’t give us any reason to believe that. Rather, he’s trying to win the debate by defining his position as right and true. Truth by stipulation.

No Steve…. I recognize that Asharis are Muslims general…I just simply don’t subscribe to that particular theological school of thought...

Zawadi said the Asharite position is “contrary to Islam.” That’s much stronger than merely claiming that he doesn’t subscribe to that particular school of thought.

And unlike Zawadi, Al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun are renowned and revered representatives of Islam.

I’m talking about definition (what the word forgiveness means) and not about any particulars regarding method and conditions of application.

Once again, he’s committing the word-concept fallacy.

Steve… it’s very simple brother.

You’re not my brother.

It makes no sense that WE ARE FORGIVEN our sins, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME our sins were ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FORM OF “PUNISHMENT” (which Jesus allegedly bore).

Very simple.

Saying it makes no sense is not an argument. Where’s the argument?

At the same time, but not the same person. Zawadi skates over that fundamental distinction.

If you want to define the word forgiveness in a way not understood according to the norm, then fine.

Zawadi is not the gatekeeper of normality, or arbiter of how to define concepts.

Please do so CLEARLY. Otherwise, Christians are speaking gibberish according to Muslims, since it makes no sense to us how PTS and forgiveness are harmonious with each other.

I already explained how they’re harmonious. Zawadi doesn’t engage the argument. He merely folds his arms, stamps his feet, acts petulant, and repeats his refuted claim.

Okay fine, I take it you don’t agree with all those scholars then. Fine. That’s your right.

Zawadi hasn’t cited any “scholars” in his post, or his subsequent replies to me. Instead, we’re treated to vague references to anonymous “scholars.”

What I don’t understand is that the wage of sin is spiritual death. Spiritual death is separation from the presence of God, correct? So, shouldn’t then Jesus must have been separated from God the Father if he bore our sins?

Help me out here. I’m trying to understand.

Once more, Zawadi is getting carried away with metaphors. “Separation” from the “presence” of God is a spatial metaphor. “Spiritual death” is a biological metaphor.

I never said otherwise. I didn’t demand that the exact word “propitiated” be presented. So that’s a strawman.

Actually, that’s how Zawadi framed the issue. Now he’s backpedaling.

An inference based or not based on scripture??? It only talks about the Father’s wrath being appeased.

Notice Zawadi’s inability to follow the argument. If the Trinity is based on Scripture, then an inference from Trinitarian theology is implicitly Scriptural. You don’t need a specific prooftext to draw a logical inference.

Yes, God didn’t punish his divine nature, but his human nature. Yes, that’s clear. It doesn’t change the fact that God punished himself. The method and mode of how it was done isn’t what is being questioned at this point.

Observe how Zawadi is equivocating in this very paragraph: “God didn’t punish his divine nature…God punished himself.”

So God “satisfied” his wrath? Pick any word you like. It doesn’t matter to me. The point is that God had to punish himself in order to fulfill some kind of satisfaction or demand of his according to your theology. That simply doesn’t sound right.

The Son of God Incarnate underwent punishment in place of and behalf of sinners.

To say “that simply doesn’t sound right” is not an argument. Where’s the argument?

And it’s not “my theology.” It’s divine revelation.

I don’t simply “pick” on Christian preachers. Rather, I am merely offering a counter rebuttal to their claims.

Whose claims in particular?

So I would recommend that people such as yourself offer advice to “Christian preachers” instead of me, so that they don’t end up shooting themselves in the foot.

There’s nothing wrong with preachers using metaphors. It’s only a problem for folks like Zawadi who treat colorful metaphors in wooden fashion. 

“The Shale Energy Revolution”

http://blog.yardeni.com/2012/05/energy-costs-reshoring-in-usa.html

Last Thursday, Reuters reported: “Vast reserves of natural gas and oil unlocked from underground shale deposits have slashed the price of U.S. natural gas to a fraction of costs in Europe and Asia, making it some of the cheapest energy in the world. That is cutting production costs at U.S. factories, making 'Made in America' a more attractive option and driving investment in everything from foundries to chemical plants. The shale energy revolution could also turn the United States into a net exporter of many fuels in little more than a decade, transforming energy from the economy's Achilles' heel to a source of strength.”

If environmental concerns raised by new drilling techniques don’t lead to regulations that snuff out the boom, America will become a net energy exporter in just over a decade. Truck stops around the nation are adding tanks of LNG because it is substantially cheaper than diesel. Trucks transport roughly three-quarters of American freight, so lower transportation costs could provide a big boost to the economy. The resulting boom could add between a half percentage point and a full percentage point to annual real GDP growth over the next 10 to 15 years.

A definition of “apostle”, and the New Testament canon as “the real heir of the apostles’ authority”

The message of redemption in Jesus Christ was entrusted to the apostles of Christ, to whom he gave his full authority and power: “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16, pg 109).

In Kruger’s analysis, one of the “criteria for canonicity” is “Apostolic origins”. What does it mean if a writing has “apostolic origins”?

In the conflict between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the point at which “the rubber meets the road” lies within terms like “apostolic authority” and “apostolic succession” and “apostolic tradition”. As I pointed out last time, Joseph Ratzinger was hanging the whole Roman Catholic ball of wax on the point that “The idea of a ‘New Testament’ as ‘Scripture’ is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis (tradition), is already clearly taking shape”.

So then, then it makes sense to define and clarify our terms.

But I don’t want to give just a dictionary definition. I want to explore what really was meant by the term “apostle”. In later blog posts, Lord willing, I’ll look at terms like “authority” and “succession” and “tradition”. The word “apostolic” can serve as a modifier for those, but there are other modifiers, too, for those words.

Here is one definition of “apostle”, from the Lutheran writer Hans von Campenhausen, in his Ratzinger-approved work, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (London: Black, 1969, Hendrickson Edition, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. pgs 22-23).

In what then did the distinctive character and activity of an apostle consist? In every case the apostles are missionaries, and to that extent, the popular conception of apostolate and of ‘apostolic ministry’ is entirely correct. Preaching is of the essence of the apostolate; no apostles are known to us who are not at the same time missionaries. But the modern concept of a missionary is not wide enough to characterize fully the status and weight of apostolic authority. For the apostles are quite plainly vested with the direct power and dignity of their Lord himself. The very word ‘apostle’ is nothing other than a literal translation of a Jewish legal term with a definite meaning, namely shaliach, which denotes the person of a plenipotentiary representative, whose task it is to conduct business independently and responsibly for the one who has assigned him these powers for a particular service [emphasis added]. The apostles are thus the plenipotentiaries of their heavenly Lord; and their authority, therefore, does not derive from any human call or contingent developments…

I don’t believe any Roman Catholics would take issue with this at this point. The “calling” to be an apostle, von Campenhausen argues, is the result of “a call by the Risen Christ himself, who, we are told, appeared to Cephas, to the Twelve, to James, and also ‘to all the apostles’.

Apostles are “not simply preachers and teachers, but also founders of Christian communities, and as such know themselves, as Paul at least clearly indicates, to be permanently responsible for their congregations. As witnesses, messengers, and personal representatives of Christ the apostles are the principal and most eminent figures in the whole primitive Christian Church, and in Jerusalem and among the Gentile congregations alike theirs is the supreme authority” (22).

Is Paul Stuttering?

1 Cor 15:5-8: ... and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born …

What’s the difference between “the Twelve” and “all the apostles”?

… again and again the decisive factor is the encounter with the Risen Lord, which was frequently both experienced and understood as a special call or commission. The number of eye-witnesses who had seen the Risen Christ ran into hundreds; but the ‘apostolic’ men of the primitive community had not merely seen him, they had been constituted by him public witnesses to his resurrection and person. Ringed with the iron of their testimony, the Church’s faith in Christ could never be shattered. To this extent not only Peter and the Twelve, but also James and ‘all the apostles’, right through to Paul, the last apostle, are in fact part of the ‘gospel’. With their testimony, therefore, they are in truth earlier than the Church, which is based on that testimony, and must continually renew its relationship (23).

Again, in that last paragraph, the apostles, with their testimony, are earlier than “the Church”, and “the Church” must continually renew its relationship with “the testimony of the apostles”.

They are, indeed, the inaugurators and foundation stones of the Church, despite the fact that their importance, their position, and their personal quality vary considerably in other respects, and that not even their number can be established with certainty.

Directly implicit in this once-for-all character of their function is the fact that the rank and authority of the apostolate are restricted to the first ‘apostolic’ generation, and can be neither continued nor renewed once this has come to an end (23).

I don’t think that Roman Catholics would contest this, either.

The Resurrection is a unique event set in historical time, the certainty of which is not (as might be quite conceivable in the abstract) confirmed and kept alive by constantly repeated manifestations of Christ. Instead, once experienced and attested, it has simply to be handed on, ‘safeguarded’ and ‘believed’. It is true that the temptation to extend the apostolate beyond the apostolic generation was not entirely avoided; here and there attempts were made to turn the title of ‘apostle’ into a kind of professional designation for missionaries and for ascetic men of the spirit. In the long run, however, all these attempts proved abortive. The holders of the ‘apostolic’ office of bishop, who ultimately secured the government of the Church, did not describe themselves as apostles; they are simply the successors, or at most the representatives, of the apostles, and as such they too remain bound by the original apostolic word and witness, which finds its definitive form in the New Testament canon. It was the latter which in a certain sense became the real heir of the apostles’ authority (23-24). 

A Roman Catholic Creed

In the beginning was Rome, and Rome was with God, and Rome was God. Rome was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Rome, and without Rome was not any thing made that was made. In Rome was life, and Rome was the light of men. Rome shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Reasonable Doubts podcast, Part 2 1/2, or "atheists are voracious readers"

Ah, but my favorite line:  You're focusing on a single tangent and ignoring all of the content of our arguments. Your position is flawed & arguments are lame.

Paired with: For my part, you lost me in paragraph one of your first post.


So yeah, never mind. It's going to be hard to take these guys even semi-seriously going forward.

Military chaplains

Dr. Hart:

 

I’m certainly supportive of your advocacy of 2K theology, but the examples you use here seem misplaced to me.

 

You begin by noting the compromising entanglements that Chaplains face in the military. These entanglements may exist in some form, but the manner in which they exist, in my experience, has never been due to problems with our country’s law or our military’s doctrine (admittedly, the effects of DADT’s repeal haven’t had time to take effect yet). In the Army at least, there is a clear distinction made between performing religious services and providing them. The former is done by Chaplains because the state has hired them to preserve the free-exercise rights of service members. The provide function is done by Chaplains as an explicit expression of their particular faith tradition. These two hats that Chaplains wear has always seemed to me to comport quite nicely with 2K ideas: on behalf of the state, we ensure the free exercise of religion for all Warriors, and on behalf of our denominations, we conduct religious services in line with our faith traditions. Honesty of course requires me to admit that there are pressures for Chaplains to lose their denominational distinctives. But I would simply point out that those pressures really don’t have anything to do with current law or policy (again, let’s wait to see what happens with DADT’s repeal). In fact, those pressures are in spite of them. In my opinion, any pressure to conform results from the overwhelming presence of evangelical, I-don’t-have-an-ecclesiology-or-a-system-of-doctrine Chaplains in our nation’s military. They as a group hate putting people in “boxes” (lots of stories I could share here, but won’t for space). So those issues are not policy driven, but people driven. Certainly, taking Reformational Chaplains out of the mix isn’t the answer to that problem. As a parting shot on Chaplains in the military, we have to remember that the military isn’t the Church. So Frame’s shock-and-awe at a Presbyterian Chaplain’s appreciation for the faith of his Pentecostal colleague shouldn’t seem so scandalous. They were not a part of the same denomination, as Frame noted, so what’s the big deal about affirming the catholicity of the faith despite some people’s wacky backgrounds (see Peter Wallace here, http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=128)?

 

Your use of women in the military also seemed to miss the mark. You rightly observe that women have the right to self-defense, but you wrongly confuse that, I think, with their participation in military service, as if “tactical” issues were the only thing at stake (it’s not clear what you meant by that). The truth is that women serving in the military poses a serious moral dilemma, whether arguing from the perspective of natural law or God’s moral law. First, it requires men to reprogram their protective instincts toward women. If caught in a firefight (perhaps this is what you had in mind earlier), male soldiers must repress any urge to provide special protection to their female counterparts, simply expecting them to expose themselves to danger like anyone else engaging in combat with the enemy. How does this change men when they come back to their wives after a deployment? Second, it requires women to reprogram their natural nurturing motives. They must teach themselves to function among men as men, repressing the beauty of their femininity so as to conform to the aggressive and hard character of military culture. How does this affect their relationships with the husbands and children? Third, it creates a sexual-relational environment that promotes sexual immorality. The truth about college campuses is that putting men and women in close proximity to each other for extended periods of time tends to lead to all kinds of debauchery. Guess what a Forward Operating Base often becomes? You guessed it. WLC 99 clearly teaches that establishing conditions that foster sin is in itself sinful. Nature certainly teaches something similar.

 

Again, I appreciate your advocacy of 2K. I just wish you had picked better examples, or at least better understood the ones you picked. As always, I would be interested in receiving your feedback.

 

Chaplain (CPT) Ken Honken

http://oldlife.org/2011/10/one-way-to-tell-the-difference-between-two-kingdom-theology-and-its-critics/#comment-38684

Scientists are from Vulcan, humans are from Earth

Daniel Dennett writes:

In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top' - among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking 'What if I'm wrong?' Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab! And, to return to my main point, it is the goodness of this tradition of reason and open inquiry that I thank for my being alive today.

1. I don't agree with Dennett's characterization of the morality of Christians. The Bible doesn't unqualifiedly let people "feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves attain." Dennett has obviously never seriously taken the time to try and understand the Bible.

2. Dennett sets up a false dichotomy. There are many devout Christians serving in science and medicine. There are many Christian nurses, doctors, lab technicians, scientists, meal preparers, etc.

3. Moral standards in the world of science and medicine aren't always as universally rigorous as Dennett makes them out to be. Does Dennett think all mainland Chinese scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers have the same moral standards as all Western scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers? (With regard to "meal preparers," Dennett could Google something like "Chinese food scandals" for starters.) For that matter, does Dennett think all Western scientists and physicians have the same moral standards when it comes to research or patient care?

4. There could be conformity due to mandated obedience rather than because the person genuinely believes it's the right thing to do.

5. Dennett is inordinately praising if not outright idolizing scientific and medical research "standards of conscientiousness" and "the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry." It's as if he believes scientific and medical research is ubiquitously far more motivated by an inner sense of duty and conviction to adhere to the rational pursuit of knowledge such as expressed in the scientific method and the free exchange of ideas than by personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, self-centeredness, fear, anger, hatred, bitterness, a sense of honor, perceived slights or dishonors, jealousies, revenge, and (shall we say) the baser elements of human nature. Dennett has a sterilized, whitewashed image of the lab. I guess Dennett must think scientists and doctors and lab technicians and meal preparers hail from Vulcan rather than Earth.

Dennett should disabuse himself of his airy fairy notions by reading a book like James Watson's The Double Helix. Or by following the day to day activities and work of scientists, physicians, lab techs, and meal preparers. If he's honest, he can find multiple instances of personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, and many of the other vices I previously listed. Not to mention their incarnations in such behavior as gossip, trash talk, reluctance to admit mistakes or poor results, and so forth. And let's not forget recent scandals involving people like Andrew Wakefield, Jan Hendrik Schön, or Hwang Woo-suk, whom many other scientists and physicians originally were perfectly fine with in how they conducted their research. At this point Dennett might do well to exchange his rose-tinted glasses for chicken goggles!

6. Dennett asserts "Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated." On the contrary, my experience has been there are lots of appeals for others to have faith in the prinicipal investigator or research group leader because he or she has membership to this or that prestigious organization or because they won a fancy award or have such and such a degree from this or that Ivy League institution or something along those lines.

Also, check out what Feynman has to say as well:

7. In any case, where's the obligation to behave morally responsibly given Dennett's atheistic, evolutionary, secular worldview?

How to be a Christian without having to follow Christ

http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/newsweek_and_time_weight_in_on_christianity_and_heaven

Blogging about the evils of blogging about the evils of blogging about...

Internet controversy gives us the liberty to play theological video games. That is, it is vicarious, faux drama, exciting enough to keep us tapping away at our keyboards but not so exciting that we lose sleep. We read an attack site (discernment blog, as they like to call themselves), and find that the kingdom is crumbling because Joel Osteen’s book is being carried in some LifeWay store somewhere, or because a guy in our camp invited a guy in their camp to speak at a conference. We head over to our favorite guru’s blog to get the straight skinny on just what the respectable ones are saying about this issue or that.

In all this reading, all this key-stroking, what we are really stroking is our egos. We think that by keeping up with the controversy we are really fighting the battle. And because of all the Internet play it is getting, we know it is the battle for the ages. We think we are fighting off Suleiman’s Muslim assault on Vienna, preserving Western Christianity, when all we are really doing is playing with toy soldiers. Like those who fought in the Saint Crispin’s Day battle, we can then go to our beds thinking ourselves fine fellows for having been in the fight. We, in short, aim far and miss far.

The real battles are these: Will I speak graciously to my children today? Will I have a grateful and cheerful heart about my neighbors, my fellow employees, those with whom I worship? Will I go to war against gossip, not by pointing out the gossip of others but by tending my own garden? Whether some evangelical superstar embraces some mystical prayer form is less important to the kingdom’s future than whether I will pray faithfully for that little girl with the brain tumor.

It is true that the world out there matters. There are controversies that count. Martin Luther changed the world, facing bullies like David before Goliath. But when his beloved wife, Katie, trusted in the finished work of Christ alone, that changed eternity.

Not many of us worry about what we will eat or what we will wear. Sadly, that’s not because we’re so spiritual; rather, it is because we are so prosperous. Having been freed from such worries, do we then focus on pursuing the kingdom of God and His righteousness, or do we instead worry about the future of this theological coalition or the direction of that shared blog? Pursue the kingdom by pursuing His righteousness. And then all these things will be added to you. Stop your fretting. The future does not depend on you. It depends on the One on whom you depend.

There is someone wrong on the Internet. It’s probably you. Log off, hug your kids, kiss your wife, and go get some of His rest. The world will not only be there when you get back, it will have been made better.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet/ 

I’m afraid this is one of those pious-sounding bromides that doesn’t make much sense.

i) To begin with, I’ve never understood people who are oblivious to their own glaring contradictions. Sproul Jr. is, himself, resorting to the Internet to condemn the Internet. So is he on an ego-trip, too?

And this isn’t an isolated case. His platform is a major online ministry.

ii) In addition, has he forgotten the parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30)? Sure, most Christian bloggers won’t have the impact of Martin Luther. So what?

What’s wrong with making the most of whatever God has given you? Due to talent, institutional position, and/or historical position, some Christians wield far more influence than others.

But does that mean we should disdain the efforts of Christians who labor in obscurity? Shouldn’t we bloom where we’re planted? God gives some Christians a vast ranch, and others a little vegetable garden. But shouldn’t we be just as faithful in a small calling as a great calling?

Success is cumulative. A series of little victories. Augustine was hugely influential in church history. But if it wasn’t for Monica, there’d be no Augustine. Many Christians doing their little best adds up to a great good.

iii) Yes, there’s a danger that blogging can siphon off too much time from other obligations. Blogging shouldn’t edge out friendship evangelism, or prayer time, or domestic duties.

But while single out blogging? The same can be said for sermon preparation, or writing commentaries.

iv) As a rule, I think it’s a good thing when young men get delve into theological controversies on the Internet. At least they’re interested in theology. At least they take it seriously. That’s a good way to channel their youthful energy.

Of course, there’s nothing virtuous about controversy for its own sake, but if they weren’t fighting theological battles, they’d be fighting for something far less important.

I’ve read Christians who complain about how our culture idolizes sports. Well, to the extent that that’s true, isn’t it good to divert some of that energy to Christian doctrine and ethics? Let’s be grateful.

Young folks could do a lot worse than blog about theology. Indeed, consider how young folks who are not into theology spend their time. 

The Wesleyan Maneuver

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theology-at-biologos-the-curious-case-of-the-wesleyan-maneuver-part-3/

Arminian fruit

A favorite tactic of Arminian apologists is to preemptively discredit Calvinism by associating Calvinism with the execution of Servetus. One problem with that tactic is that it cuts both ways. Consider, for instance, the author of the infamous Roe v. Wade. What was his religious affiliation?

Justice Harry Blackmun was active United Methodist

3/4/1999

By United Methodist News Service

One of United Methodism's best-known members, retired Supreme Court Justice Harry Andrew Blackmun, died early March 4 at Arlington (Va.) Hospital at the age of 90.

Blackmun was the first United Methodist to serve on the Supreme Court since the retirement of Charles E. Whittaker in 1962. 

He is best known for his majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, upholding the constitutional right of a woman to decide whether to have an abortion. 

Blackmun joined Metropolitan Memorial United Methodist Church in Washington soon after going to the capital. He frequently read Scriptures at Sunday morning worship. Senior pastor Bill Lawrence said Blackmun always prepared a contextual statement to precede the reading of the text. "He was active in the fellowship life of the church," Lawrence said. "He would greet people during coffee hour Sunday morning. His life was an expression of his faith."

Praise for Blackmun's serious involvement at Metropolitan was echoed by the Rev. William Holmes, who retired in 1998 after 24 years as senior pastor of the church. "He had a great love for the Scripture and was really a scholar of the biblical literature," Holmes said. "He also had a great love for the United Methodist Church as a denomination."

At the invitation of Bishop James K. Mathews, Blackmun addressed the members of the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference in the late 1970s and taught a Bible story based on a book in the Old Testament.

For 12 years, Blackmun was a member of the governing body of the United Methodist Publishing House in Nashville. During that time, his friend, the late Emory Stevens Bucke, was book editor. It was a custom for Abingdon, the agency's book-publishing arm, to send complimentary copies of the 100-plus books it produced each year to board members. Blackmun would routinely pencil corrections in each book and return them to Bucke.


http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive1999.asp?ptid=&story=%7B002726AD-BE49-4FDF-9AB4-FA5444666FE9%7D&mid=3368

The worst man who ever lived

Who’s the worst man that ever lived? Historians tend to measure that by the leader who caused the most death and destruction. Perennial candidates for this ignominious distinction include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tamerlane, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, and Vlad the Impaler.

If we were politically incorrect, we’d include architects of abortion policy like Justice Brennan.

There is, however, a very promising candidate for the worst of the worst who doesn’t normally make the cut. I mean Muhammad. He founded a false world religion that men kill for and die for (die for in the process of killing). When you consider the cumulative body count, century upon century, which he set in motion, I expect that greatly outstrips the other villains on the list.

This isn’t an incidental consequence of Islam. Not a mistaken interpretation. Rather, by precept and personal example, Muhammad led the way.

I’m not suggesting that he was especially sadistic, or more wicked than the moral monsters I cited above. Rather, I’m considering the long-range effects of his mission and message. The resultant lives destroyed over the centuries, in the Islamic meat-grinder. 

The atheist syndrome

Wintery Knight says:

05/28/2012 at 11:13 AM

Wow, you’re not kidding about Michael Shermer, either:

Dr. Shermer characterizes himself as a skeptic. As he confesses in his book, “What I want to believe based on emotions and what I believe based on evidence and empirical data may not coincide. I am a skeptic not because I don’t want to believe, but because I want to know. How can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true or what is actually true” (p. 2)? Dr. Shermer succumbed to skepticism after his girlfriend, Maureen, was critically injured in an auto accident and he appealed to God for her healing. “What finally tipped my belief into skepticism was the problem of evil–if God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, then why do bad things happen to good people?” “A just and loving God who had the power to heal would surely heal Maureen. He didn’t. He didn’t. I now believe, not because God works in mysterious ways or he has a special plan for Maureen, but because there is no God” (p. 45).

Source:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/why-do-we-believe-by-reza-varjavand

It’s exactly like Lewis Wolpert disbelieving in God as a child when God wouldn’t help him find his cricket bat. People become atheists as children. Not because they have looked at the evidence, but because they expect God to make them feel good, and he doesn’t perform.

This also happened to other atheists like Dan Barker and John Loftus. Barker basically was forced by financial concerns (due to his own fiscal incompetence) to alter his preaching and singing to appeal to liberal Christians, finally ending in atheism. Loftus had an affair with a hot-looking church secretary then complained about being judged for committing adultery. Show me an atheist and I’ll show you a person who is unskilled AT LIFE.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/greg-koukl-the-new-atheism-old-arguments-new-attitude/#comment-49830

The big ten

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39994

Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them

I’m going to comment on a recent screed at Debunking Christianity:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-i-hate-christianity.html

Loftus has semiretired from blogging–or so he says. This post I’m quoting by an anonymous contributor. The blogger says this about himself:

I have been a professor of philosophy and religion for over 14 years, and have taught in some of the best universities in the United States.

http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com/p/about.html

So the blogger is a “thinking man’s” atheist. Not only of those village atheist types, but an intellectual. Keep that in mind as we assess the quality of his arguments, which remind me of a quip by George Orwell.

Why I HATE Christianity

By A is for Atheist at 5/25/2012

 

There are many reasons why I hate Christianity--and yes, I do literally hate Christianity. Why?--because of the negative doctrines it promotes, and the resulting "moral laxity"--which the Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago. Let me explain by offering the following analogy.

Of course, an obvious problem with this allegation is that many atheists espouse moral relativism or moral nihilism. So he should hate atheism.

The following would be a life situation for many, and is analyzed from a Christian perspective:

 

Christians believe they are born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things because they are "born sinners." (Original sin)

From Christian perspective, original sin is counterbalanced by regeneration and sanctification.

Now, a Christian man who says he loves his wife still beats her because she doesn't do as she is told. She forgives him for hurting her every time, because that is what her religion tells her to do. The man beats her because the same religion tells him he has authority over her, and he cannot help but to do bad things, so he does them thinking he can't help himself--but it's ok, because his god will forgive him. Until one fateful day when a beating ends in death, and he kills his wife with his bare hands.

i) I don’t think the Bible teaches unconditional forgiveness.

ii) This isn’t Christian theology or Christian ethics. Rather, this is the antinomian heresy.

iii) The Bible teaches Christian husbands to love their wives.

iv) Conservative Christians generally believe in the right of self-defense, including the right to bear arms. If a battered wife shot her husband dead, and I was on the jury, I’d vote to acquit.

v) From a secular perspective, the wife is just a primate. Male primates naturally dominate female primates. Boys will be boys, and chimps will be chimps.

vi) To my knowledge the rate of domestic violence is far higher among cohabiting couples than married Christians. The live-in boyfriend is far more likely to batter the girlfriend than a husband, much less a professing Christian husband. Yet cohabitation is the secular alternative to the quaint Christian tradition of monogamous marriage.

THIS IS WHY I HATE CHRISTIANITY. I hate the fact that this religion tells people they are EXPECTED to behave badly. I hate the fact that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their bad behavior in this life or the next for believers as long as they sincerely say "sorry" to Jesus. What about the victims?? What compensation do they get under the Christian system? None. There is no justice for victims of Christian crime--unless it is through secular laws. Therefore, Christianity in and of itself is IMMORAL and UNJUST. This is the biggest reason why I HATE Christianity.

 

If people believed they could do the right thing the first time, and took responsibility for their own actions instead of having "Jesus" do that for them, the world would be a much better place to live in.

If that’s his biggest reason for hating Christianity, then he should redouble his hatred towards atheism. Consider the ethical consequences of atheism. And don’t take my word for it. Here are what a couple of atheists have to say:

Atheists have to live with the knowledge that there is no salvation, no redemption, no second chances. Lives can go terribly wrong in ways that can never be put right. Can you really tell the parents who lost their child to a suicide after years of depression that they should stop worrying and enjoy life? Doesn't the appropriate response to 4,000 children dying everyday as a direct result of poor sanitation involve despair at the relentless misery of the world as well as some effort to improve things? Sometimes life is s**t and that’s all there is to it. Not much bright about that fact. Stressing the jolly side of atheism not only glosses over its harsher truths, it also disguises its unique selling point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/life-without-god-bleak-atheism/print?fb=native

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

 

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723345/posts