Shepherd v. Enns

Some additional comments which Jerry Shepherd made in response to Enns and his defenders:

Jerry Shepherd  Carlos Bovell 

• 3 days ago

Carlos, thanks for your taxonomy on a number of points on whether one qualifies as a Marcionite or not. Some of your points are valid, some are irrelevant, and some are just way overdrawn. For example, your second point needs a whole lot more nuancing. For one thing, it's quite anachronistic. Purposeful reflection on the practice of allegorical interpretation doesn't really take place till after Marcion has passed off the scene. For another, It just isn't true that, "Here, he came into major conflict with nearly every proto-orthodox writer. Allegorical/typological readings were the only way to maintain that Jesus was Messiah, they argued." This just isn't the case. Many of the allegorists also practiced very literal, historical interpretation. They believed that the recorded events happened, AND, that they could be interpreted allegorically. To be sure, allegorical interpretations of the ancient church fathers could be quite fanciful, but by no means did they regard these as the only way to maintain that Jesus was the Messiah. I'm willing to be corrected on this if you can demonstrate otherwise.

But, the point that you say is the "only" point on which the Marcionite label might stick is, in fact, the important point. Marcion jettisoned the OT because he could not reconcile its description of God with the person of Jesus. He refused to believe that the violent deity depicted in the OT was the Father of Jesus. So the question to ask is whether an approach to the same problem today that relegates significant portions of the Old Testament to "human projections onto God," or "wrong perceptions of the character of God," does not do the same thing as Marcion does. Again, to use, the example of Joshua 6, aside from any question as to whether or not the account is historical, the question is, is the character of God as portrayed in this account consonant with the God whom Jesus called his Father. Did Jesus worship, praise, and pray to, that God. If the answer is "no," then without formally doing so, the approach has effectively decanonized the account, as well as large swaths of the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Ironically, It also ends up distorting our picture of who Jesus is.

Recognition of the discontinuities is not the issue. Methodology in dealing with them is.

Jerry Shepherd  Andrew Dowling 

• 3 days ago

Sorry, Andrew. I have to disagree with you quite strongly on this one. Jesus did not contradict anything in the OT. He did give new directives for the new people of God in a different age. He did condemn un-nuanced uses of OT laws and/or practices. He did bring certain OT practices to a conclusion. But he never passed judgment on those practises and he never contradicted them. And you're going to be very hard pressed to show how other OT authors disagreed with the author of Joshua.

Jerry Shepherd  peteenns 

• 3 days ago

As you said, one specific example is the dietary laws. Jesus has ended them. But that does not at the same time mean that they were not the will of God for the OT Israelites. Something can be changed, amended, nullified, etc., for any number of reasons, without at the same time passing judgment on it.

Another example would be the marriage and divorce legislation. Jesus declares that these laws were neither ideal nor in accord with God's original intention. But that does not mean that Jesus condemns the giving of those laws. Goldingay: "Legislation by its very nature is a compromise between what may be ethically desirable and what is actually feasible given the relativities of social and political life."

Violence? I find it very difficult to find a critique of what God commanded in the OT in the passages you cited. Christ gives his people a "new directive" with regard to how they are to relate to their enemies, and one which is in accord with the very different context of the NT people of God as a wandering, pilgrim, oppressed people of God, rather than a settling or settled political entity. But this by no means says that what the OT understands to be the command of God for his ancient people was wrong. Longman: "To say that the New Testament critiques this picture of God in the Old Testament is in effect to say that the Old Testament is not Scripture."

Regarding the NT "mixed bag," this metaphor hardly does justice to the issue. As Karen pointed out, if anything the violence is more horrific in the NT than in the OT, both in the recorded words of Jesus, and throughout the rest of the NT. I see no evidence of Jesus and the NT writers "grappling" with this issue. Instead, they rather strongly and plainly proclaimed it. The evidence of this latter understanding is substantial.

Jerry Shepherd  peteenns 

• 3 days ago

To say that God's law has no expiration date sounds clever, but needs more nuancing and makes for a very flat reading of the OT. Within the Torah itself, there is the recognition that the law was amendable and adaptable. The law is changed in Numbers 9 to allow people who had become ritually unclean to still participate in the Passover, though a month later. The law is changed in Numbers 27 to allow daughters to inherit property. The same law is further amended in Numbers 36 to allow make sure that the property inherited by the daughters remains within the clan. These passages serve as precedents for the Law's adaptability.

Christ comes as the authoritative Son of God, with full prerogative to change the law as he sees fit. It was his law to begin with.

I never alluded to any historical difficulties. I only made a hypothetical concession and said that if one discounted the historicality of the conquest narratives or other narratives in which God is depicted in violent terms, then one is still left with an inspired portrayal of God--a God-authorized portrayal with which he is comfortable for his people to use in their understanding of who he is and what he is like.

Jerry Shepherd  peteenns 

• 3 days ago

Pete, the tectonic shifts are indeed tectonic. And they are all in keeping with what I've been saying all along. Christ's changes the law in accord with a radically new constitutive make-up of the people of God. Notice how all the things you put in parentheses (land, purity, Gentiles, circumcision, treatment of outsiders) reflect the fact that the new people of God are not going to be ethnically, or nationally, or geographically constituted.

Jesus does not "subvert" the purity laws. He brings them to an end. And it is a non sequitur to argue that because he brings them to an end, that he is questioning the giving of those laws in the first place. When Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that a day is coming when neither Mt. Gerizim nor Mt. Zion will be the authorized place to worship God--while in the very same breath acknowledging that the Jews had the location correct--is he calling into question the tabernacle and temple plans and their erection in the first place? Of course not. This is a major tectonic shift; but it is not by any means saying that the OT provisions for tabernacle and temple should never have been made in the first place. The same is true of the purity laws. They are coming to an end. But they had a God-authorized purpose in the OT.

Actually, you wouldn't know where I'm coming from any more than you do now, if I "came clean" about my views of the historicity of the conquest narrative. After all, I think you and I are basically agreed regarding the historicity of the creation narratives. And yet, we draw theological conclusions about the character of God from the "portrayal" of God in those narratives. I believe God reveals himself through all kinds of genres. So, I'll make a deal with you. I'm pretty sure you don't believe in the historicity of the conquest narratives. So, you tell me if you think the portrayal of God in the conquest narrative is an inspired portrayal, an authorized window into the character of God, and then I'll tell if you I think the accounts are historical. :)

God's goodness in judgment

I'm going to comment on this post by Steven Nemes:

http://acthe.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-goodness-of-god-and-the-damnation-of-all/

“But salvation is gracious and so not obligatory.” That is right, it’s not obligatory from the perspective of desert; but the claim is not that God’s not saving anyone is incompatible with his commitment to retribution (who would deny that anyway?). Crisp goes wrong when he supposes that goodness is somehow defined by desert. Not at all: goodness is defined by the bringing about of good, regardless of desert. Retribution is one thing, and goodness is another.

Notice that Nemes artificially segregates justice from goodness. But even though divine goodness is broader than divine justice, justice is a necessary component of divine goodness. Likewise, exacting justice is an expression of divine goodness. It is good to be just, and it is good to act justly. Absent a just character, God would not be good. Absent just conduct, God would not be good.

Furthermore, goodness is particularly ascribed to persons who do good to those who are undeserving, so that goodness is especially about going beyond desert in the favor of the undeserving. You’re good if you reward those who deserve it, but you are really good if you are kind to your enemies, if you are willing to listen to someone who is annoying and abrasive, if you show mercy to persons who otherwise have spit upon you and hurt you. In a way goodness is defined against desert and retribution, rather than by them: you’re not all that good if you only give people what they deserve; you’re really good if you do good to those who don’t deserve it.

i) Actually, that confuses goodness with mercy. Although mercy is sometimes good, goodness is broader than mercy. Punishing the wicked is good. 

ii) Being kind to my enemies has limits. That doesn't obviate the right of self-defense. It's not my duty to let someone murder me.  

iii) In addition, even if it's good for me to be kind to my enemies, that doesn't mean it's good for me to be kind to your enemies. Even if I can afford to put myself at risk, that doesn't automatically mean I have the right to put you at risk. 

Put another way, I'm not doing you good by showing kindness to someone who will do you harm. My kindness empowers him to harm you. Showing Ted Bundy mercy rather than justice is merciless to his future victims. Doing good for him is bad for others. Very bad. 

In that respect, it is positively evil to show some people mercy. You are merciful to them at the expense of others.  

Playing with atheist matches

• Joshua Elsom ‏@JoshElsom Jan 22
  @Fred_Butler @dawest85 right. But if you saw evidence of an undeniable miraculous healing, would you believe it?
• Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler Jan 22
  @JoshElsom @dawest85 Certainly. Why wouldn't I? The point is is that it doesn't, in spite of charismatic claims to the contrary.
• Joshua Elsom ‏@JoshElsom Jan 22
  @Fred_Butler @dawest85 "it doesn't [happen]" There you are, Fred, you've already predisposed yourself to unbelief. Naturalists do the same.
• Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler Jan 22
  @JoshElsom @dawest85 People see UFOs all the time, do you believe them or are you predisposed to unbelief like naturalists?

This is the third time I've seen Fred use this comparison. Clearly he's fond of this comparison. It's part of his cessationist toolbox. 

i) Twice I've corrected Fred on this comparison:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/12/ufology-and-miracles.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-truth-is-out-there.html

Unfortunately, Fred is impervious to rational correction on this issue. He repeats the same refuted argument. 

ii) Once again, we have a MacArthurite aping an atheist argument. Why does it not occur to Fred that he's giving Christians license to commit apostasy? Just as Fred cites the gullibility of ufologists to deny charismatic miracles, atheists cite the gullibility of ufologists to deny Biblical miracles. Why is Fred so shortsighted and irresponsible that he resorts to objections which boomerang against the Christian faith? If a Christian plays with atheist matches, what's to prevent him from burning the church down? 

iii) What, exactly, is Fred denying? That he's predisposed to disbelieve charismatic miracles? But Fred is a cessationist. So by definition, he's predisposed to disbelieve charismatic miracles. As a matter of principle, he doubts or denies them. 

iv) Or is Fred denying the comparison with naturalists? To begin with, that's ambiguous. Preferring a naturalistic explanation can mean one of two different things:

a) "Naturalistic" can be a synonym for "atheistic." 

b) "Naturalistic" can mean seeking a natural cause–in contrast to a supernatural cause. 

v) Apropos (iv), if E.T.s exist, they are natural (i.e. biological) creatures. If E.T.s visit the earth, they use natural (i.e. technological) means. Seeking a naturalistic explanation would be so explain the phenomena at the same level as the phenomena. Seeking a natural cause for a natural event or natural entity. In that case, interpreting the event by natural probabilities is fitting. 

But that's where Fred's analogy breaks down. For at least some miracles are supernaturally caused. Caused by supernatural agents or supernaturally empowered agents. To default to a naturalistic explanation for a reported miracle is atheistic. 

vi) In addition, his analogy breaks down in another respect. For it may be that some UFOs invite a supernatural explanation. 

Craig Keener's Acts Commentary

I'm going to be posting some material from Craig Keener's commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012) over the next several days. James Dunn calls Keener's commentary "unbeatable in today's market" on issues of historicity, Richard Bauckham calls it "magisterial" and refers to Keener's "encyclopedic knowledge of ancient literature", and Daniel Marguerat calls it "the most comprehensive commentary on Acts to date", among other endorsements. Once the forthcoming volumes are published, the commentary is supposed to be about 5000 pages long. I've read the entirety of the introduction, which is about 650 pages, but only a small minority of the remainder. The pages are large, and there are a lot of footnotes with small print, so those 650 pages in the introduction might be something like 1000 pages in the average book. I'll only be citing material from the introduction, but even what I cite there has to be highly selective. I'll quote some of Keener's arguments for his conclusions, but I'll often cite his conclusions without the accompanying argumentation.

“This is my body” – thoughts on a “sacramental presence”

Andrew Clover

Andrew Clover provides some irenic commentary:

... Unfortunately there are certain important things that we have not historically agreed upon and we shouldn’t pretend those things don’t exist or don’t matter. They do matter and attempts to minimize the importance of certain doctrines will ultimately end in fruitlessness at best, or a sort a-doctrinal liberalism at worst. After all, true unity in the biblical sense can only exists around truth. And if we are not in agreement on what that truth is, then we don’t have unity in the full sense of the word….

When describing their view of the supper, Lutherans will almost invariably say something along the lines of “We take Christ at His word. When The Lord says ‘this is my body’ we acknowledge that it ‘is’ "His body.” It is a source of pride for the Lutheran, not pride in a sinful sense, that their theology doesn’t require them to change the words of institution or play logical and philosophical games or do mental gymnastics with the text. Often times the argument from a Lutheran is as simple as “Hey, is=is.” While I admire the approach to scripture that insists on letting the word speak and not making it say what it doesn’t, I believe that this claim to take Christ’s words literally while others do not is where the Lutheran argument falls on its own petard….

Cardinal’s statement that Council of Trent still “fully valid” in Netherlands casts poo-poo on unity week

It’s “the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity” in the Netherlands, but a bad old Cardinal, a card-carrying member of the Roman Magisterium, has cast a poo-poo on all of that by reminding everyone that the anathemas of the Council of Trent are still valid.

An official “Church spokesperson” “expressed shock” and dismissed the Cardinal’s words as “merely theoretical”.

“Does she, or doesn’t she?” **



Dutch cardinal’s defence of Council of Trent casts shadow over Unity week:

To whom are miracles undeniable?

Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler 16h

@JoshElsom @dawest85 But could they deny it? The Pharisees didn't believe Jesus miracles, but they couldn't deny them.

Fred's argument suffers from a fatal equivocation. To whom were the miracles of Christ undeniable?

i) The Pharisees were religious Jews. They believed in demons. They believed in possession. They believed in exorcism. Indeed, there were Jewish exorcists. 

In his response to their accusation, Jesus exploits their belief and practice to trap them in dilemmas:

18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? (Lk 11:18-19). 

So the exorcisms of Christ were undeniable for them, given their religious outlook. 

ii) But it doesn't follow that an exorcism would be undeniably miraculous for atheists. To the contrary, atheists find exorcism eminently deniable. They deny the precondition. They don't believe in demons or demonic possession. 

Atheists have two basic ways of deny miracles:

a) They try to deny the occurrence of a miracle. They say, Which is more likely: that a reported miracle happened, or that reporters are unreliable?

b) Failing that, they have a fallback. They concede the occurrence of the event in question, but deny the miraculous interpretation of the event. They say, Which is more likely: a naturalistic explanation or a supernatural explanation?  

iii) Furthermore, Fred himself doesn't regard exorcism as undeniably miraculous. For instance, Fred automatically discounts Catholic miracles. Hence, I assume that Fred automatically discounts Catholic exorcisms. 

For that matter, I don't know if Fred even credits evangelical exorcisms. For instance, there are Lutherans and Anglicans who perform exorcisms. Does Fred make allowance for that? Or does his cessationism preemptively deny that? 

iv) Indeed, that goes to the circularity of his definition. In my observation, this is how MacArthurites define deniability:

A miracle is deniable if a MacArthurite denies it. 

By definition, charismatic miracles are deniable. By definition, Biblical miracles are undeniable. 

MacArthurites make what they are personally prepared to believe or disbelieve the real standard of comparison. 

v) So what makes a miracle deniable or undeniable is person-variable. It depends on your worldview. What's undeniable for a Christian may be deniable for an atheist. 

At least, Christians ought to have different criteria than atheists for assessing reported miracles. Unfortunately, the objections that MacArthurties raise to charismatic miracles often ape the objections that atheists raise to Biblical miracles. 

Instant healing

Joshua Elsom ‏@JoshElsom 19h @Fred_Butler but you'd certainly be satisfied with any healing right, from a high fever (Mark 1:29—31) to a resurrection as evidence? 

Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler 11h @JoshElsom A high fever healed instantly (104 to 98.6) in a sec. by a healer. Sure. I don't believe anyone has be resurrected by a healer.

There are several problems with Fred's response:

i) The text doesn't say Peter's mother-in-law was running a fever of 104º. And it does't say her temperature dropped back to normal in one second. All it says is:

30 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.

Suppose she was running a fever of 102º? Suppose it took five minutes for her temperature to drop back to normal. Would that still be a miracle by Fred's lights?

ii) Now, in Fred's defense, he might say that he's just introducing some common sense caveats. A fever can range along a continuum, from a slightly elevated temperature to a life-threatening temperature. Likewise, the rate at which a fever drops can range along a continuum, from rapid to slow. And a rapidly dropping high fever is more impressive, more "miraculous," than a slowing dropping low fever. No doubt going from 104º is one second is more impressive, more "miraculous," than going from 100º is 30 minutes. 

And I don't object to that. If I were evaluating a faith-healer, I think those are reasonable considerations.

iii) If, however, Fred is going to take that approach, then he needs to drop the pose of holding modern faith-healers to the standard of "NT quality miracles." For Fred isn't really using NT miracles as his litmus test.

a) For one thing, I've never even seen him volunteer this example. That had to be shoved in his face. Fred is very finicky about just what NT miracles furnish the standard of comparison. Several NT miracles aren't "NT quality miracles" for purposes of testing charismatic miracles.

b) In addition, even when he is confronted with this example, it doesn't set the bar. To the contrary, he takes that case, then ratchets it up several more notches by adding some demanding qualifications which have no counterpart in the text. 

iv) One final observation. Is instant restoration necessarily restorative? Suppose a boy is playing on a frozen pond. He falls through the ice. By the time he's wheeled into the ER, he has a temperature of 56.7º. 

Suppose the ER has equipment that can raise his temperature from 56.7º to 98.6º in one second. Would that be sound medical practice? Would that restore him or kill him? Which is better for him–raising his temperature instantly or gradually? I'm not a medical professional, but doesn't the body need time to adjust? 

Perhaps that consideration is inapplicable to a miraculous healing. Maybe, maybe not. My immediate point is to question the facile assumption that instantaneous healing is necessity superior to something more gradual.  

Fred's decoy

Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler 45mGood ole Steve Hays becomes an apologist for Cleansing Stream Ministries, 

Actually, I'm responding to Fred on his own terms. He framed the issue a certain way, and I'm responding to him according to his chosen framework. 

Does Fred lack faith in his own argument? Does he not believe in his stated criteria? 

Undeniable exorcisms

Fred Butler ‏But could they deny it? The Pharisees didn't believe Jesus miracles, but they couldn't deny them.

That's very revealing. Fred's usual schtick is amputees. But what kind of miracle is Fred referring to in this instance? Presumbly, he's alluding to this incident:

22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Mt 12:22-24).

The Pharisees don't deny it. They can't deny it. So they try to discredit the miracle by reassigning the cause. Instead of attributing the miracle to divine agency, they attribute the miracle to Satanic agency. 

But notice the kind of miracle which this account narrates. It's not Jesus healing amputees, but Jesus casting out demons. 

Is it Fred's position that exorcism is an undeniable miracle? A "NT quality miracle?" That's what his appeal to Mt 12:22:24 commits him to. 

But by that logic, if some modern-day Christians perform successful exorcisms, then that would meet Fred's criterion. That would prove continuationism and disprove cessationism.  

The Western

It's an interesting question why the Western is a defining American genre rather than, say, the Colonial American period. There's stuff in Cotton Mather that would make for a great movie or TV drama. Likewise, The Last Mohican is a fine film. 

But somehow that period never caught on. Of course, that's in part a result of the fact that directors prefer films and TV dramas about the Old West rather than Colonial America. 

Yet I think a lot of the appeal has to do with freedom from civilization. Big sky country. Simplicity. 

It's a very masculine lifestyle. 

Westerns also reflect a longing for the past. Something both science fiction and the Western share is a discontent with the present. Westerns are past-oriented while SF is future-oriented. 

Not only can people feel out of place, they can feel out of sync. That they don't belong in this time. It's too early or too late.

SF tends to cut against the grain of religion because, in SF, the "magic" is supplied by advanced technology rather than miracles, witchcraft, and spirits. 

There are exceptions like Frank Herbert's Dune series. Of course, that's "soft" SF. And it reflects his eclectic interests.

Westerns often trade on a man-against-nature motif, where there's nothing between you and a hostile environment. That's in contrast to a lot of SF, where humans live on space ships and futuristic cities. 

In a Western setting, God is the only thing between you and death. You don't have that technological cushion. 

That gives many Westerns a more primitive, elemental quality that can dovetail with religious themes. 

Likewise, the desert landscape lends itself to allegory. 

It has a more "biblical" appearance, like the Mideast. Vast, dry, majestic, but austere and inhospitable. 

The mechanics of reincarnation

Those who defend reincarnation think it's a direct and straightforward explanation for certain phenomena. But even if that's the case for the front-end of the operation, the back-end of the operation is very complicated. Lots of moving parts. It takes some heave-duty metaphysics to make it work, and traditions which sponsors reincarnation lack the metaphysical resources to ground their dogma. Even for theistic Eastern traditions, not just any god or gods would be up to the task. It would require a very powerful, very knowledgeable deity (or collaboration of deities) to control and coordinate the process. And the situation is even more problematic for traditions which deny personal gods: 

There are, after all, major non-theistic religious traditions that affirm an afterlife. Noteworthy in this connection are Jainism, Buddhism, and non-theistic varieties of Hinduism, all of which affirm an afterlife in the form of the doctrines of karma and reincarnation. However, these traditions face a major internal difficulty, which if recognized would tend to push them in the direction of theism. This difficulty is what Robin Collins has termed the “karma management problem.” He writes, 

Traditionally Buddhists have believed that by and large the circumstances of one's rebirth are determined by one's karma — that is, one's deeds, whether good or bad in this and previous lives. This, however, seems to require that there exist something like a “program” that arranges your genes, the family conditions you are born into, and the like to correspond to the moral worth of your past deeds (Collins 1999, p. 206). 

For theists, such as many Hindus, this minute arrangement of one's life circumstances to match one's karma can be viewed simply as the work of God. But if there is no God, what is this “karma program,” and how was it initiated? We know today, by means that were not available to the ancient Hindus and Buddhists, that “nature” — the nature that is known and studied in the natural sciences — simply doesn't work this way. The laws of nature are subtle and marvelously complex (though also, in their own way, “simple”), but it is abundantly clear that they do not work in such a way as to determine physical situations in accordance with the moral worth of persons, or in accordance with any moral considerations whatsoever. The laws of nature, we might say, are no respecters of persons — or of morality. Rather, they are impersonal in character, and in many cases are expressible in mathematical formulae that are far removed from the teleology that permeates human existence. So if there is a “karmic moral order” of the sort postulated by the Indian traditions, it must be something radically different from the order of nature that (so far as science can discern) governs the physical processes of the world. And yet the two orders must be intimately related, for it is precisely these physical processes which, in the end, are said to be disposed in accordance with one's karma. It is wholly implausible that two diverse systems of cosmic order such as this should arise from unrelated sources and come together accidentally; they must, then, have a common source. If the common source of the natural order and the karmic order is impersonal, we are still in need of some account of how and why it would be such as to produce these two quite different sorts of order in the cosmos. These questions, it would seem, are much more readily answered if we postulate a personal source of both the natural and the moral order — that is to say, a God who desired that there be created persons, and who wished to provide a stable natural order within which they could live and exercise their varied powers. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/afterlife/#MetSupSur