Tooting his own Horn

Catholic apologist Trent Horn has a running commentary on Mike Winger's critique of Catholic authority:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23hl_fkhiCQ&t=66s

Horn is one of the best younger-generation Catholic apologists, so he's a good foil. I'm going to selectively comment on Horn's responses. For several reasons I won't comment on everything Trent says. The arguments of Catholic apologists are repetitious. I've been over this ground many times before. I wrote a partial review of Horn's book (The Case for Catholicism). Winger sometimes frames issues in ways I don't. 

1. Like Catholic apologists and theologians generally, Horn commits the fallacy of casting the fundamental issue in terms of authority. But it just isn't possible, in principle or practice, always to begin with authority for what you believe, because the logic is regressive. Horn is a convert to Catholicism. Catholic authority wasn't and couldn't be the starting-point at that stage of the argument, because that is what needed to be established. Given Catholic authority, he can say this is my authority for what I believe, but that only pushes the question back step: by what authority does he believe in Catholic authority? If you always require some authority to justify what you believe, then the requirement extends backwards ad infinitum. It's self-refuting for Catholic apologists to insist that every interpretation of Scripture, or the case for the canon of Scripture, must be backed up by authority. That's a condition which the Catholic apologist will be unable to consistently meet. It's necessary that we be able to establish some positions independent of authority to make any progress at all. The warrant for these positions isn't authority but reason and evidence. Positions based on argument rather than authority. That can include an argument for authority, but you can't always fall back on authority and argue from authority, because what you take to be your authority is in itself a key issue in dispute. 

2. Apropos (1), he says the special divine guidance which Rome enjoys is negative rather than positive protection (53-54 min.). God doesn't inform the Magisterium to interpret the whole Bible but to shield it from disastrous misinterpretations. In his response to Winger, Horn frequently corrects what he takes to be Winger's misinterpretations or invalid inferences from Scripture. But by his own admission, Horn has no authority for his own interpretations. His alternative interpretations of Winger's prooftexts aren't superior because they are authoritative interpretations. Rather, Horn appeals to the wording of the text, and the context–as he understands it. In addition, he accuses Winger of inconsistency. So most of this debate falls outside the framework of authority. 

As such, it's confused for Horn to accuse Winger of making himself his own authority when he interprets the Bible. That accusation backfires. Protestants aren't guilty of doing the same thing they accuse Rome of doing. If you're going to act like every time a reader interprets the Bible, he is making himself an authority, then that will sabotage any attempt by the Catholic apologist to correct a perceived misinterpretation or make his own case for Catholicism. Interpretation is not inherently an exercise of authority, and authority isn't necessary to validate the interpretation.

3. Apropos (2), the demand for authority is bound up with the demand for certainty. But even if that's ideal, it's unobtainable by falling back on authority all the time, since that reflex just relocates the same demand: what makes you certain of your authority source?  So the whole strategy is self-stultifying. That doesn't mean certainty is necessarily unattainable, but not by acting like you must invariably start with authority. 

4. "historical pedigree in connection with apostles"

That's a Catholic criterion. It's understandable that a Catholic apologist will appeal to a Catholic criterion, but it begs the question when debating Protestants inasmuch as we operate with a different theological paradigm. We don't need to have historical pedigree in connection with the apostles. Historical pedigree is irrelevant. We just need to be faithful to apostolic teaching. 

In fairness, I'm not suggesting a Catholic apologist shoulders the sole burden of proof. It begs the question if a Protestant simply asserts his alternative paradigm when debating Catholics. Both sides have a burden of proof. It's incumbent on both sides to argue for their respective positions. 

4. "When did sola scriptura come into effect? Give me a date. The doctrine has never been in effect."

i) That's loaded question. A fallacious way to frame the issue because it runs afoul of the sorites paradox. It's unreasonable and unrealistic to demand dates for many historical developments. History is a continuum with transitional phases. 

Indeed, Horn's demand is self-destructive given the doctrine of development. Many of these doctrinal innovations evolved over time. They gradually went into effect. The process was incremental.

ii) Horn fails to appreciate the underlying principle of sola scriptura, which is the supremacy of divine revelation. Scripture is the mode or medium of divine revelation. During the era of public revelation, divine revelation had an oral as well as written mode, but that stage of redemptive history is behind us. 

In response to Winger, Horn raises stock objections to sola Scriptura which, among other places, I recently addressed:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/01/oral-and-memorial-tradition.html

5. 2 Thes 2:15

Horn accuse Winger of construing this passage too narrowly:

i) To begin with, if you're going to use this as a prooftext, then you ought to restrict yourself to what Paul actually says. Now, what he says here may be consistent with other things he doesn't say. But you can't use it to prooftext things he doesn't say. 

ii) It's possible to derive more general principle from what Paul says, but that will have to operate at the same level. If you sat under the feet of St. John, the same principle would apply. You can't expand what Paul says to a different principle. 

iii) Paul isn't appealing to apostolic tradition, in the customary sense of tradition. The concept of tradition connotes a chain of transmission with links in the chain. But that's not what Paul is describing. He's explicitly referring to direct oral teaching, from Paul to his immediate audience. There are no intervening links. Not what Paul taught a second person who passed it along to a third person who passed it along to a fourth person. That's not what Paul has in view. Rather, hold fast to what Paul taught you in person. Face-to-face transmission from an apostle to a Christian. The principle is restricted to Christians with firsthand knowledge of Paul's oral teaching. 

iv) That doesn't necessarily invalidate a chain of custody. Some historical traditions are reliable. But 2 Thes 2:15 isn't making that claim. 

6. Mt 18:15-18

Where does the Bible say that the church is just all the people who love Jesus? That is the church in one sense, but when you read through Scripture it is very clear that the church has an authoritative hierarchy composed of a three-tiered system of deacons, presbyters–from which we get the word priests–and bishops, the overseers, the episcopate. So when you look for example in Mt 18:15-18…then he says to the apostles whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Bring it to the church, not to your church, because it's not like oh okay well if that church disagrees with me and condemns me I'm going to join this other church over here. No, rather, when you look in the NT it's very clear that it talks about the church in Rome, the church in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem…It refers to the fact that there is one church and that church has to have authority, and you're going up the chain of authority–especially if you bring two or three with you, what does it mean to take it to the church? Do you just get every other Christian around and you're like a mob of thousands of people? No, you're going to something authoritative that has apostolic succession behind it in order to resolve the dispute. That's the highest level for you to do to (27-29 min).

1. It's a semantic fallacy to suggest that because the word priest derives from presbyter, therefore 1C church presbyters were priests in the sacerdotal sense. In Catholicism, it acquires a technical sense according to Catholic ecclesiology. But it's anachronistic to read that back into NT polity and usage. 

2. He assumes that "bishop" and "presbyter" are separate church offices, with the episcopate as the higher office. Which disregards the arguments of Bible scholars that NT usage is fluid and interchangeable. These are variant designations for the same church office. NT polity hadn't hardened into the more specialized usage and hierarchical structure of Roman Catholic eccesiology.

3. Horn acts as though Mt 18:15-18 envisions an appellate process like the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. But in context the setting is a local church, and a judgment of excommunication is rendered by the congregation, not higher clergy in particular. 

John – The Man Who Saw

https://ratiochristi.org/blog/john-the-man-who-saw/

Abusing Peter's Weaknesses To Establish A Papacy

I want to expand on Steve's recent discussion of Luke 22:32 and the papacy.

The passage is addressing Peter's restoration after a fall, not some sort of strength he had as a Pope. The work Peter is described as doing, in strengthening his brethren, not only is common to all of the apostles (Acts 18:23), but is common to individuals of a lower rank in the church as well (Acts 15:32). It's not something unique to Peter, much less is it papal.

Much the same can be said of John 21:15-17, another passage often abused to argue for a papacy. John 21, like Luke 22, is addressing Peter's need for restoration, as reflected in the parallel between the three affirmations of love for Christ and Peter's previous three denials of Christ. And, as with Luke 22, what Peter is called to do in John 21 is not only common to the other apostles, but also to individuals of a lesser rank (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2).

Neither Luke 22 nor John 21 suggests that Peter had papal authority, much less that he would pass on such authority exclusively to a succession of bishops in Rome. It's perverse to take these passages about Peter's weakness and need for restoration and use them to claim that he was being given papal authority.

The Catholic abuse of Isaiah 22 is of a somewhat similar nature. I won't repeat everything I've said in past discussions about the passage. See the comments section of the thread here. As I explain there, if Catholics were consistent in their appeal to Isaiah 22, they would have to conclude that neither Peter nor his supposed successors have the attributes Catholics allege. So, whereas seeing a papacy in Luke 22 and John 21 involves unverifiable speculation, seeing a papacy in Matthew 16's use of Isaiah 22 is even worse, since papal authority isn't just absent from Isaiah 22, but is even contradicted.

What we have with these three passages is a couple that refer to Peter's need for restoration after a fall (Luke 22, John 21) and another that would give Peter and his successors sub-papal authority if the passage were applied consistently (Isaiah 22). In that sense, all three passages are about the weaknesses of Peter, but are being abused to argue that he has the strength of a Pope. The common thread is that some of the terminology and concepts used in each of these passages can be made to sound papal if taken out of context. But none of the passages imply a papacy when interpreted as we'd normally interpret a document.

Eternal sonship

1. I recently ran across the question of whether it's consistent to affirm the eternal sonship of Christ but disaffirm the eternal generation of Christ. To which I'd answer: yes!

2. Both sonship and generation are related metaphors, and so it might seem illogical to affirm one but disaffirm the other. But they're not identical metaphors. In addition, theological metaphors are analogies, and so the question is always how much to include in the analogy and what to exclude. What is the metaphor designed to illustrate? How far does the metaphor extend?

3. As I've discussed before, I think the significance of the sonship metaphor in reference to Christ is representational, in two related ways:

i) It's a way to indicate resemblance. Two things that could not be more alike but still be distinct. No one is more like a father than is son, or vice versa.

(Twin brothers might be a similar metaphor, but the father/son relation is far more dominant in the ancient world.) 

Which carries the implication that they are two of a kind. And, indeed, the NT often uses the sonship of Christ as a divine title.  The unique sonship of Christ implies the deity of Christ.

ii) If (i) is a metaphysical claim, that in turn has a practical aspect. Because they're so alike, there's a sense in which one can substitute for the other. A son can naturally act as his father's agent. Acting in on his behalf, in his place, with his authority. So (i) grounds (ii). Because the Son represents the Father ontologically, he's uniquely qualified to represent the Father in action. 

3. Turning to eternal generation, one asymmetry between eternal sonship and eternal generation is that the concept or metaphor of generation doesn't entail a son. Fathers beget daughters, too.  

Although generation is a male sexual metaphor in reference to the begetter, it is not a male sexual metaphor in reference to the begotten. Men father daughters as well as sons. And it would be inapt to say no one is more like a father than his daughter, pace the father/son relation. So that's one limitation of the metaphor or analogy. 

4. Unlike eternal sonship, eternal generation takes the metaphor a step further, as a theory of derivation. Eternal generation is a more radical and ambitious claim. In a sense, an attempt to explain the origin of the Trinity. On this view, the Father causes the Son and the Spirit to exist.

This is distinguished from creation in the usual sense inasmuch as they are eternally and necessarily caused to exist. Moreover, they share the Father's essence. 

Whether that's adequate to distinguish God from a creature is disputable. By that logic, the Father could be eternally and necessarily caused to exist by a super-deity who stands behind the Trinity, transmiting his essence to the Father. Indeed, the logic of the principle seems to extend backward with no stopping-point. 

Of course, some folk's ecclesiology commits them to creedal statements regarding eternal generation. I appreciate the fact that the Nicene paradigm squeezed out Arianism, but I regard eternal generation as a theological compromise or halfway house that degrades the deity of the Son and Spirit. In that respect I side with theologians like Alexander Röell, B. B. Warfield, Paul Helm, and John Frame who reject a hierarchical model of the Trinity. 

Strengthen your brothers

Luke 22:31-32 records Jesus telling Peter "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren". The original Greek in the passage shows that Satan demanded to sift "you", or all of the apostles, but Jesus prayed specifically for Peter and his faith not to fail. 

Jesus singles out Peter and prays for him so that his faith may not fail and he would strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:31-32). Peter will be a leader, but one who serves others instead of being served. Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism (Ignatius 2017).

1. To begin with, this passage says nothing about the papacy or the pope strengthening the Roman episcopate. It's not a promise to the papacy. It's not a general promise. It's very topical. 

2. Peter is singled out, not because he outranks the other disciples, but because he will betray Jesus. The prayer anticipates his denial. Jesus prays for Peter's restoration in advance of his betrayal.

3. As a matter of faith, Peter's faith did fail. He lost his nerve and publicly renounced Jesus. That's a paradigmatic act of infidelity. 

In context, the meaning of the statement is not that his faith will be unwavering, but that his failure won't be permanent. Jesus prays that Peter won't abandon the cause. Having betrayed Jesus, he will repent of his betrayal and renew his commitment. 

4. The text doesn't say how Peter will strengthen his fellow. The most immediate explanation, in context, is that the example of Peter's restoration will strengthen the other disciples. The source of encouragement is not something Peter will do, but something Jesus did for Peter. If even Peter can be forgiven and restored, after publicly disowning Jesus, that's an encouragement to the other disciples, as they face persecution in the years ahead. Indeed, one reason Jesus tells Peter, in the presence of the other disciples, that he has prayed for him, is so that when Peter is contrite and rejoins the movement, that outcome will be attributed to the prescient and efficacious intercession of Jesus rather than Peter's fortitude naturally rebounding. 

5. Finally, there's the fallacy of inferring that if Peter is said to strengthen the other disciples, this carries the implication that the other disciples won't strengthen each other. Catholic apologists act as though statements like this imply a contrast, where affirming something in reference to one person disaffirms the same thing in reference to anyone else. But the statement is not logically exclusive, as if only Peter can play that role. What makes Peter special in this passage is not his leadership but his failure of leadership. He buckled under pressure and set bad example. The proleptic prayer of Christ is to rectify Peter's dereliction, not to promote him.  

Puberty blockers

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/01/59422/

"I used to be an anti-LGBTQ Evangelical"

I'm not sure this is worth commenting on:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anti-lgbtq-evangelicals_n_5e174d8ac5b600960c61c589

However, the liberal media is pursuing a strategy of redefining Christianity so that "true" Christians, or the only socially-acceptable version of Christianity, will be LGBT-affirming. Part of the strategy is to parade self-styled evangelicals or ex-evangelicals who finally saw the light and became progressives. 

Growing up watching the popular 1980’s sitcom ”Growing Pains,” I found myself going starry-eyed every time heartthrob Kirk Cameron appeared on the screen. When I learned that Cameron was an evangelical Christian, just like me, I admired him even more ⁠— there weren’t many people in Hollywood willing to speak out in the name of their faith, but Cameron was unashamed to do so.

Maybe that teenybopper intro has some pull for female readers, but it bounces right off normal male readers.

In 2012 I watched Cameron tell talk show host Piers Morgan that he believed homosexuality is “unnatural,” and just for good measure, he added, “It’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

Good for him!

Naturally, Cameron received backlash from the LGBTQ community and its allies because of his public comments. But many evangelicals, myself included, rushed to defend him and his views. 

She was right the first time. 

But my most popular blog posts were the ones that offered my take on controversial topics like the value of purity, submitting to your husband and why I didn’t believe women should use birth control.

Was she a member of the Quiverfull movement? If so, she's lurched from one reactionary position to another. 

After Cameron discussed his thoughts on gay marriage and homosexuality on CNN, I felt it was important to show my support for him. I posted a status on my personal Facebook account that read, “It’s important to watch the entire interview when looking at Kirk Cameron’s (and many conservative Christians’) view on gay marriage. I’m so proud of Kirk for saying what he believes, instead of brushing aside this important topic for fear of the very real controversy.” What I didn’t realize at the time was how harmful that single post would be.

How "harmful"? How many of the world's seven billion people even know that she exists? Tells you something about Brianna Bell's inflated sense of self-importance.

After my post I (rightfully) received blowback from LGBTQ friends…

At the time she still identified as evangelical. So what did it mean for her to have LGBTQ friends? What were the terms of the friendship? Was she required to affirm and celebrate their lifestyle as a condition of friendship? If not, why would they be "pained" and "alienated" by her support for Cameron? 

BTW, part of being a good friend to someone is to discourage their destructive lifestyle choices, viz. drug addict, compulsive gambler. 

Then, on June 12, 2016, I woke up to the news of the horrific mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub, an LGBTQ bar in Orlando, Florida, in which 49 people were killed and 53 others injured by a lone gunman. Despite my feelings about the LGBTQ community, I could not fathom anyone doing something so evil. That day was a wake-up call for me, and it marked the first time I truly recognized just how much hatred ⁠— and violence ⁠— the LGBTQ community faces. 

Really? The shooter (Omar Mateen) was a gay Muslim who used to hang out at gay bars and nightclubs. That's gay-on-gay crime. How is a gay Muslim shooting up a gay nightclub supposed to be a wakeup call for evangelicals? 

I explored the victimization of the LGBTQ community and read about the abuse that many in the queer community have faced and continue to face.

What about the way homosexuals abuse each other? High rates of domestic abuse. The damage of anal intercourse. High STD rates. Not to mention AIDS?

What about the way homosexuals abuse children? The abuse scandals in the Catholic church and Boy Scouts. Puberty blockers, chemical castration, and mutilation of normal boys and girls.

Last summer, a writer and queer friend of mine was attacked online by a group of mostly male bullies, many who claimed to be devout and loving Christians, for writing an article about a Pride parade. I watched as my friend was torn apart online for her writing and her activism, as conservative evangelical strangers attempted to silence her and do harm to her with their words. This woman was called a pedophile by some, while others suggested that her children should be taken away from her because she dared to claim that Pride celebrations were appropriate ⁠— and even fun! ⁠— for children. 

Because, as a matter of fact, it's derelict parenting to expose innocent children to the debauchery of gay pride parades. 

As I’ve evolved and shed many of my conservative view, I’ve had to wrestle with how to abandon an old ideology while remaining committed to my faith. While I am still a devoted Christian, I’ve had to work to untangle myself from doctrine that is harmful and strive to adopt an intersectional and inclusive theology.

A cautionary tale of theology based on tearjerkers rather than God's design for human nature.

The stats don’t lie: Most LGBTQ Americans experience harassment, LGBTQ youth contemplate suicide at a rate three times greater than heterosexual youth, and a national epidemic of fatal transgender violence plagues America. 

Actually, the stats often lie since there's a cottage industry of fake hate crimes. 

In addition, it doesn't occur to her that high suicide rates among LGBTQ youth might be due to the fact that homosexuality and transgenderism are intrinsically depressing conditions 

I cannot stand in the shadows anymore, knowing that to do so is to perpetuate stigma and continue shaming the queer community. 

Because it's so brave to switch sides when you have the wind to your back. 

Jesus himself commands, “Love each other as I have loved you,” and that is exactly what I intend to do. 

In context, that's about how Christians are obliged to love other Christians. It's not a statement about unbelievers.

Moreover, the way to love others is not to support their self-destructive lifestyle. And you don't love the innocent by empowering the LTBT lobby to harm the innocent. 

Was Jesus self-deceived?

Tentative Apologist

@RandalRauser

I had a nice exchange with @RTB_FRana but I was disappointed to learn that he holds Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That thesis is to biblical studies as young-earth creationism is to geology. When Christian apologists endorse fringe views they weaken their credibility.

James Anderson

@proginosko

Replying to @RandalRauser @RTB_FRana

Yeah, it's so embarrassing when Christians endorse the sort of fringe views that Christ himself held!

Tentative Apologist

@RandalRauser

Tentative Apologist Retweeted James Anderson

James should try this out at the Society of Biblical Literature. That will surely put all those liberal "scholars" in their place.

Tentative Apologist

@RandalRauser

Replying to @proginosko @RTB_FRana

I suppose you also think the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds?

James Anderson

@proginosko

Replying to @RandalRauser @RTB_FRana

I think whatever Jesus affirmed about the mustard seed is true. I also think whatever Jesus affirmed about the OT scriptures he quoted is true. Moreover, I believe I have good rational justification for these beliefs, despite what the fine folk at SBL might think of me.

Tentative Apologist

@RandalRauser

Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Matthew 13:32). So it's settled for you then?

James Anderson

@proginosko

If Jesus affirms p, I take that as decisive grounds to affirm p. Does that shock you? Of course, there's a reasonable question here about what p is in the case of Matthew 13:32. I take it that "all" is qualified by the conversational context.

1. Wow. Rauser actually trots out the mustard seed objection to inerrancy, as if that's comparable to Mosaic authorship. The mustard seed statement is proverbial or hyperbolic. It's not erroneous to use hyperbole or proverbial sayings (e.g. "a fish rots from the head down").

And it's not remotely analogous to the question of Mosaic authorship.

But this also goes to Rauser's kenotic Christology, where Jesus, as a child of his times, unwittingly taught falsehood. 

The issue is whether the target audience recognizes hyperbolic or proverbial expressions. Then analogy would then be whether the same audience recognized that Mosaic authorship was just a conventional attribution. There the comparison breaks down. 

I'm sure Rauser's real position is that 1C Palestinian Jews believed in Mosaic authorship, but modern scholars know better. 

2. While Jesus may have held false beliefs qua his human nature, that's in union with the divine nature, and in his capacity as a teacher, the divine nature would inform, correct, or censor false beliefs of the human nature/mind when it came to teaching others.

One issue is whether the divine nature would function, among other things, as a screen or quality control mechanism, to preempt Jesus from unwittingly misleading billions of Christians over the centuries. It's serious business to say Jesus was an unintentional deceiver, due to his fallibility.

But if anything, it's worse than that since on Rauser's theory, Jesus is self-deceived. If he's fallible in the way Rauser says or allows for, then he could be self-deluded about his mission, about his understanding of God, about who he himself is, about salvation and damnation. 

3. Regarding Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

i) If the Pentateuch was actually compiled during the Babylonian Exile, how did the entire Jewish community forget the origins of the Pentateuch? Is social memory that weak? How did Mosaic authorship ever become the unquestioned tradition in 2nd Temple Judaism?

ii) The most natural assumption is that Genesis-Chronicles are written in chronological order. It's a continuous history, so you'd expect books recounting later events to be written later than books recounting earlier events. But if the Pentateuch was compiled during the Babylonian Exile, then doesn't that push the composition of the other books into the Intertestamental period? It really bunches up, like a log jam.

iii) What were pre-exilic prophets talking about when they indict Israel as covenant-breakers and threaten the curse sanctions of Deuteronomy if, in fact, the Pentateuch was compiled after the fact?

iv) If the Pentateuch is pious fiction, why say the Israelites are carpetbaggers who invaded Palestine from Egypt, and ultimately go back to a progenitor from Babylon? Why not just make the Israelites indigenous to Palestine? 

v) For that matter, if the Pentateuch and Historical Books were really written during the empires of neo-Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Alexander, and Republican Rome, why people them Canaanite adversaries?

Francis Chan at the Catholic Ecumenical Track

I watched the talk Francis Chan's recently gave to a Catholic group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zudQWKCFEBk&t=737s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER883Nr3O-0

This is, of course, right on the heels of a sermon in which he was regurgitating Catholic talking-points. A few random observations:

1. Pastor Francis made a number of good observations about Christian piety, unrelated to Catholicism. He usually has some good things to say. I don't think he should be written off. We get different things from different people. He has his own niche. 

2. I can't foresee the future, but I think it's unlikely that he will convert to Rome. He resists being pigeonholed. He's theologically eclectic. I think he views Catholicism as just another box. He may believe it has a few things that evangelicals can learn from or benefit from, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person to pulls a package off the shelf and goes by that label. He's more independent. What he did in speaking to the Catholic group was more a case of retranslating their piety into his own priorities. 

3. If the viewer was hoping that he'd clarify his position on Catholicism, his discussion was a disappointment. If you don't feel competent or comfortable with offering a public assessment of Catholic theology, don't accept an invitation to speak to a Catholic audience. The Catholic church is far and away the largest ostensibly Christian denomination. Many unbelievers reject Christianity because they identify Christianity with Roman Catholicism, which they think has discredited itself. 

So we can't avoid evaluating what Rome has to offer. We must present constructive alternatives. Pastor Francis doesn't have to be an expert on Catholicism to have a broadly informed, considered position. A basic way to clarify your own position is to understand opposing positions. That often provides a necessary point of contrast. 

6. Pastor Francis seems to think there's a generic, Christocentric piety which Catholics and evangelicals can share in common. He fails to appreciate that devout Catholics detour their pious impulses into the Rosary, eucharistic adoration, reading Catholic saints and mystics. It's going to be a distinctive Catholic-oriented piety. He failed to explain to the Catholic audience where to look for Jesus. How to cultivate fellowship with God. 

7. He acts like refusing to fellowship with Catholics is tantamount to "hating" Catholics, and falls under our Lord's condemnation of those who refuse to love the brethren. But that's terribly confused. 

8. He acts like you can tell who a real Christian is just by looking into their eyes. How well they emote about Jesus. 

9. Pastor Francis distinguishes between Christians who are "in love with Jesus" and those who aren't. He seems to think it's possible or even necessary for a Christian to be in love with Jesus all the time, and he treats that as what demarcates true followers of Jesus from self-deluded churchgoers. 

It's true that some Christians started out very zealous, but their fervor faded over time. There are different reasons for that. A superficial conversion experience. Or boredom caused by thin theology. After a while they think they've heard it all. There's nothing new or fresh. They stagnate rather than grow. 

However, you also have Christians where the zeal has dried out, but the commitment remains. The juice is gone, yet they faithfully persevere. That's actually a better test of Christian fidelity than when they were motivated by gushing fervor. It's like a marriage where the passion is gone but commitment remains. The couple will see it through to the end, even if the emotional dividends are gone. Endurance is a mark of true Christian faith. 

10. Pastor Francis's ideal is the persecuted church. The underground church. But there's a problem with making that the paradigm. 

i) For one thing, his ideal suffers from internal tension. On the one hand he thinks persecution and suffering for the cause of Christ are what promote genuine church growth. But that model only works if Christians remain a persecuted minority. On the other hand, once church growth crosses a threshold, the church becomes worldly, losing its purity and vision. 

So he doesn't seem to think the Gospel can or should spread beyond a certain point, because true Christian piety requires a dominant culture that oppresses the Christian faith and movement. He can't decide if church growth is good or bad. It's good so long as remains underground, but it can't stay underground if there are too many converts. At that point it's too big to be hidden. 

ii) Apropos (i), Pastor Francis seems to define genuine faith or saving faith in terms of heroic faith. The cult of martyrdom. A martyrdom mystique. He doesn't seem to have a model for how or whether it's possible to be a Christian in ordinary times. Can a faithful Christian have a normal family life? Or must true Christians live on the lam, under constant threat from the authorities? 

Has it occurred to Pastor Chan that there's a sense in which it's easier to be a martyr than a lifelong Christian? Martyrdom can be an escape from the daily demands of the Christian faith. Early release from the humdrum, the frustrations, and disappointments. 

iii) He seems to lack much appreciation for the fact that God calls different Christians to different lives of service. For instance, the church needs theologians and Bible scholars. But that requires some breathing space, where Christians aren't constantly under the gun. Where they can pursue education and research, teach and write. 

11. Instead of guilt-tripping Christians who don't suffer horribly for their faith, Pastor Francis should encourage them to make generous use of their blessings for the benefit of others. That's why God has given some Christians greater opportunities than others. On the one hand we need the purifying experience of the persecuted church. On the other hand, we also need the experience of believers in countries where Christianity is legal, where there's the affluence to cultivate Bible scholarship. Seminaries, Christian colleges, and Christian K-12. These two dynamics cross-pollinate.  

12. Pastor Francis suffers from an occupational hazard of gifted preachers. This holds true for talented performers in general. If you're a gifted public speaker, you acquire a reputation as a gifted public speaker. That in turn can make you self-conscious because there's now an expectation to live up to. That's not confined to preachers. Great performers like Laurence Olivier, Franco Corelli, and Vladimir Horowitz developed stage fright because the expectations were so high. Will you dazzle the audience? Will you say something unforgettable every time you step stage? 

One reason preachers should cultivate a text-oriented preaching style is to avoid becoming self-conscious. You stay in the text. And you bring the congregation into the text. You bring the congregation into the world of the narrative. Help them visualize what the Bible is describing, and draw analogies with their own experience. That's easier when preaching from biblical narratives, but the Bible is also chock-full of metaphors. It's good for a preacher to develop the metaphors. Draw a picture in the mind's eye of the congregation. Expand the metaphor into an extended theological parable. 

If a preacher stays in the text, and draws the congregation into the text, he's less likely to think about how he's coming across. He's not thinking about himself and the image he's projecting. Rather, he's projecting the world of the text. 

Dr Peter Atkins & Dr Jonathan McLatchie | Is there a God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR5s0QnI0TU&app=desktop

Trump trial

My off-the-cuff impressions of the legal case against Trump. My attention to this issue has been cursory. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak with authority on the legal issues. Even if I was a lawyer, that wouldn't automatically qualify me to opine, since the law is specialized, with many different branches.

As a practical matter it takes a supermajority vote (2/3) to convict a president in a Senate trial. I don't think that's in the cards. This is just an attempt to damage Trump politically. 

1. One allegation against Trump is that he should be removed from office because his phone call involved a quid pro quo. By itself, I don't take that seriously. Horse-trading is routine in international relations. You use threats or bargaining chips for leverage. I'll do you a favor if you do me a favor. That's the incentive. That's how it works. So unless I'm missing something, I don't think that general allegation has any merit.

2. A more specific allegation is that Trump broke the law by withholding, or threatening, to withhold foreign aid. One problem with that allegation is that we've evolved a system in which a standard way to test the Constitutionality of a law is for the president to break the law, excuse that on the grounds that the law abridges his Constitutional prerogatives, then leave it to the courts to adjudicate the issue. The courts may conclude that he broke the law, but it was an unconstitutional law, so they strike down the law.

I don't know if that's the system our framers intended, but that's how it developed. It creates a legal paradox in which presidential or Executive lawbreaking isn't an extralegal action but part of the standard appellate system to challenge the Constitutionality of certain laws. I don't think that's a good process, but it's a bipartisan tradition. So that by itself doesn't strike me as a serious allegation. And that's assuming Trump broke the law, which is a disputed. 

3. The nub of the issue seems to be official abuse of power. Trump misusing his presidential power to handicap a political rival. Trump attacking a presidential rival through his son. That does have the classic appearance or reality of abuse of power. And I do find that somewhat disturbing.

However, even if that's the case, and that's what it looks like, there are mitigating factors. It's not as if Trump tried to frame Joe Biden or Hunter Biden for a crime they didn't commit. In fact, the Biden clan seems to have a history of nepotism where they exploit Joe's political connections:

https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/

And Joe allows them to do that. It's become a family business.

So this seems to  be an illegitimately-motived legitimate investigation. It may well be an abuse of power with respect to what induces Trump to pursue it, where he's taking advantage of his position to hamstring a political rival, but on the other hand, Biden created that vulnerability by using his political connections as a cash cow for relatives. 

Hence, while I find Trump's actions mildly alarming in that regard, I don't find them over-troubling given the extenuating circumstances. He seems to be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The Biden clan has made itself a legitimate target, even if that dovetails with Trump's political self-interest. It's very convenient for Trump, but Biden made it convenient through a pattern of influence-pedaling that gave Trump an opening–and Trump took it. The Biden clan is getting overdue scrutiny. They had it coming. Trump is a ruthless opponent. The Democrats deserve him. 

In fairness, there are allegations of nepotism in the Trump clan, as well as allegations that his business interests are intertwined with his foreign policy. I don't have a problem with applying a uniform standard. 

4. Finally, this is trivialized by the threat which the Democrat party poses to civil liberties, parental rights, innocent children, and so forth. Right now there's a larger war we need to right and win. 

What is the authorship of sin?

This is not a complete answer to the author of sin charge, simply because the author of sin objection is not one objection at all but a family of objections. It has as many different versions as there are objectionable relations to sin that the traditional view might be thought to entail God bears. It might be argued that the traditional view entails that God is the cause of sin, or that God intends sin, or that God desires that sin occur, or that God fails to love the damned. Each of these charges must be treated individually (for a variety of responses, see the collected essays in Alexander and Johnson 2016). Here it may suffice to point out that with respect to each individual charge it is not obvious both that theological determinism entails that God bears the property and that God’s bearing the property would be incompatible with divine perfection. For instance, as the above author-storyteller model makes clear, theological determinism does not entail that God causes evil in the same way that created agents cause evil, and if the traditional privation theory of evil is true, then theological determinism does not entail that God causes evil at all. Nor it is clear that, on the correct view of creation, theological determinism entails that God intends any evil at all; perhaps God selects the possible world he wishes to create all at once, so to speak, intending only the good aspects of creation and merely foreseeing (as an unintended side effect) all the evil that is caught up with it (White 2016). God may even love the damned and decide to decree their damnation, if there is a sufficiently great good that cannot be brought about without it; a general may, consistent with perfect love, order his son (a captain in his army, whom he loves) to a certain death in defense of a city in order to prevent the greater tragedy of the city’s sacking (Johnson 2016). The question is whether there is such a great good; and this is the ordinary, axiological problem of evil.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/providence-divine/#Sin

Barebacking politics

https://pjmedia.com/election/michael-gersons-love-affair-with-buttigieg-is-all-smoke-and-mirrors/

Enfield Miscellany (Part 3)

(For an explanation of what this series is about, see part 1 here. You can read part 2 here. I'll be referencing Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes. I'll use "MG" to refer to a tape from Grosse's collection and "GP" to refer to one from Playfair's. So, MG65B refers to tape 65B in Grosse's collection, and GP4A refers to 4A in Playfair's.)

Why The Family Didn't Move

In the opening paragraph of a post a few years ago, I explained some of the reasons why the Hodgsons didn't move from their house after they noticed paranormal events occurring. One of the reasons I mention there is that poltergeists center around people, not locations, so that moving would just relocate the poltergeist rather than getting rid of it. The family had some experience of the poltergeist following them outside the house soon after the events of August 31, 1977. And if an apparition Margaret saw in connection with using a Ouija board in 1974 in a location outside the house was the first event of the case, then that first event occurred outside the house. There's further information on Grosse and Playfair's tapes about this issue of the potential for the poltergeist to follow the family to another location. Grosse explains that he told the family on the day he began investigating the case (September 5, 1977) that poltergeists usually follow people around (MG2A, 24:41). More significantly, he says elsewhere that a member of the local government who happened to be knowledgeable of poltergeists told the family the same thing (MG1A, 3:00). Peggy Hodgson probably had that man in mind when she said in a 1980 interview that they didn't move from the house because somebody told them the poltergeist would follow them (GP43A, 1:49). It seems that this government official had that discussion with the Hodgsons sometime between when they first noticed phenomena in their house (the night of August 31) and when Grosse arrived (the afternoon of September 5). Judging by what Peggy Nottingham said here, there's a good chance that the discussion with that government official took place on September 1. So, the family initially did leave the house (to go to the Nottinghams) and were told shortly afterward about the potential for the poltergeist to follow them if they moved. Their staying in the house makes a lot of sense, then, not only for the reason just mentioned, but also for the others mentioned in my previous post linked above.

God's absence

1. I'm going to revisit the divine hiddenness argument. The basic idea is that many or most people don't experience God in the way they need, want, or expect. The argument operates on roughly two fronts. A typical presupposition of freewill theism is God's desires that every human being enjoy fellowship with God. Trust him. God wants everyone to be saved. 

But many human beings don't believe in God because they haven't had what they take to be a recognizable experience of God. It could be argued that there are many ways to experience God indirectly, which they fail to register, but the point is that from their viewpoint, if God exists, they should be able to experience him in a more personal, targeted fashion. They just don't recognize God at work in their lives. 

And this is a problem for freewill theism since, on the face of it, it would be easy for God to give them a recognizable experience of himself. So what's the explanation? 

One explanation is that it seems like God isn't there because, as a mater of fact, God isn't there.. Sppearance matches reality. We inhabit a godless universe. It isn't that God absents himself from people's lives, but that there is no God to experience. No one is home. You can keep knocking on the door, but the house is empty. 

Of course, a basic problem with that explanation is the abundance of evidence for God's existence. Indeed, that's one of the aggravating dimensions of the problem. Since there is so much evidence, not just for God's existence generally, but his activity in the lives of some people, why are others bereft?

Another explanation is to deny the universality of the freewill theist assumption. Maybe God doesn't reach out to every human being. Maybe it's not his desire every human being be in fellowship with himself. 

A freewill theist can also postulate postmortem evangelism, where God compensates for his absence in this life in the afterlife. Other issues aside, that has an ad hoc quality.

2. One complication is that many unbelievers say they aren't seeking God. They hate the very idea of God. They prefer a godless universe. If they though God did exist, that would put them in a state of psychological tension. 

3. There is, though, another comparatively neglected front to the issue. The problem is not God's unavailability to humans in general, unbelievers included, but God's unavailability to his own people: Christians and Jews. This is a common refrain or common complaint in the Prophets and Psalmists. So often, God is not available to us when we most need him or want his intervention.

4. That in itself requires some unpacking. In what ways to we need or want God to be available?

i) A cliche example is answer to prayer.

ii) Another cliche example is a sign from God. Not so much that we want God to solve a problem but we just want an indication that he's there, that he's still there. A confirmation that he's real. That he's there, he's aware, and he cares. That we're not totally alone. On our own in the world.

Could be very simple. An audible voice. Or a modest but unmistakable sign. 

iii) Apropos (ii), which may be the same thing or something similar, a hunger for God's "presence" or his "loving" presence in particular. What that means isn't entirely clear. It can be different from a sign. A sign is external to us. It may refer to a feeling: to be suffused with a sense of God's love.

Again, on this view, is God's felt presence in itself an experience of his love, or is the sense of divine love something over and above his felt presence?

5. This, though, goes to the larger question of how we'd like God to be available to us. How often do we feel the need to be in touch with God? Is this mainly in a crisis, or something routine?

Take Adam and Eve in the Garden, before the Fall. Did they feel they were missing something unless the Angel of the Lord appeared to them every day or every week? How long could they go without a divine visitation but be happy and content with each other, the garden, and their children to be?

6. To take a human comparison, consider a young couple riding on the crest of passion. They spend all their free time together. They can't get enough of each other. Yet that's not indefinitely sustainable. It loses its freshness.

Even people who are extremely close to each other can get on each other's nerves, or get bored with each other's constant company. Even people who are extremely close may need to have some time to themselves. They get tired of being together every minute of the day. They have to take a break. Have some time and space apart.

7. On a related note, an extended separation can intensify reunion. An extended separation can revitalize love.

8. Or you might have two brothers who were inseparable until they got married and had kids. After that, not only do they see less of each other, but the need for their mutual companionship diminishes because they now have compensatory relationships. The wife and kids provide a different kind of emotional sustenance. 

To some extent the brothers may even grow apart emotionally, not in the sense that they cease to love each other, but they're now invested in their own family. That develops a potential which was unrealized prior to marriage and kids.

If, say, the wives and kids were all killed in a traffic accident, the brothers might revert. Resume living together as bachelors. Become inseparable again. 

9. In what sense has God created us to need him emotionally? Do we naturally need to have God speak to us or appear to us every so often? Of is this mostly driven by the vicissitudes of life in a fallen world? 

Does God normally supply our emotional needs indirectly through creation? Through other people and natural blessings?

10. Of course, one problem is that in a fallen world we can't necessarily turn to each other for emotional compensations because sin puts a strain on our relationships. It makes our relationships a source of pain. Rather than filling the void of God's absence, it's another way to be hurt. 

11. I was a free range child. I used to go for long walks on my own, sometimes with my dog. It was a forested area with woods, ponds, streams, ravines, and lakes. A lot to explore.

I didn't need my parents to be available for me in the sense of having them around all the time. Rather, I needed to know that I had them to come back to. I had a home. I had security. It was (fairly) safe to explore the woods on my own. And if they weren't home when I got back, there was the confidence in knowing that they would return. Either I was waiting for them or they were waiting for me. There was no anxiety on my part.

12. There is something exhilarating about a divine Incarnation. That you're talking face-to-face with God. Looking into the eyes of God. At the same time, it might make you acutely self-conscious to be in God's presence, in such a palpable, immediate way. 

To take a comparison, boys are very uninhibited around other boys. Would it be inhibiting to be with Jesus? 

13. Because God is rarely available in ways we long for, it forces Christians to seek each other out and try to encourage one other in our joint pilgrimage. There's a bonding experience that occurs in situations of shared trust, stress, risk, vulnerability, or collaboration. There's a certain paradox when friends or Christians pool their collective helplessness. They cant do for each other what only God can do, but it can still be a maturing and sanctifying experience.