Between faith & science

For an informative exchange correcting many popular stereotypes about the warfare between Christianity and science, read the interview with Ron Numbers.

Google Earth, Membership Numbers, and the Calvinist Flyswatter

I had hoped to take some time off from blogging, but after reading “Charles” innane ramblings today, I felt I should comment.

First, I must say that Charles has improved his writing style. Either he’s changed his medication, or he has an editor. Good for Charles!

Now, on with the show. He writes:

First of all, White and Ascol are theologically adrift from Spurgeon's Calvinism. Both White and Ascol promote a theology that teaches a person must be regenerated or born again before he places faith in Jesus Christ. This is contrary to not only what Spurgeon believed but is also contrary to historic Baptist confessions.

He also mentions Calvin. (More on that below). This is yet another lie about Spurgeon. First, I’d point Charles to my earlier response to Bob L. Ross. Ross had claimed the Spurgeon did not claim that regeneration precedes faith. Yet what does Spurgeon actually state? Here is the relevant portion to help jog Charles’ short memory.

I had reminded Mr. Ross that this is what Spurgeon said about the order of regeneration to coming to Christ.

“COMING to Christ” is a very common phrase in Holy Scripture. It is used to
express those acts of the soul wherein leaving at once our self righteousness,
and our sins, we fly unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and receive his righteousness
to be our covering, and his blood to be our atonement. Coming to Christ, then,
embraces in it repentance, self-negation, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,
and it sums within itself all those things which are the necessary attendants of
these great states of heart, such as the belief of the truth, earnestness of
prayer to God, the submission of the soul to the precepts of God’s gospel, and
all those things which accompany the dawn of salvation in the soul. Coming to
Christ is just the one essential thing for a sinner’s salvation. He that cometh
not to Christ, do what he may, or think what he may is yet in “the gall of
bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.” Coming to Christ is the very first
effect of regeneration. No sooner is the soul quickened than it at once
discovers its lost estate, is horrified thereat, looks out for a refuge, and
believing Christ to be a suitable one, flies to him and reposes in him (emphasis
mine). Where there is not this coming to Christ, it is certain that there is as
yet no quickening; where there is no quickening, the soul is dead in trespasses
and sins, and being dead it cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mr. Ross replied, showing his ineptitude:

>Spurgeon is simply >referring to the preliminary quickening work bu the Spirit's using His
>Sword, the >Word, in the lost, dead sinner's heart and soul -- similar to the movement
>among Ezekiel's dry bones BEFORE they came to life, and like Saul of
>Tarsus' >"kicking against the prices" of the Word of God. >Spurgeon: >>and believing Christ to be a suitable one, flies to him and
>reposes in him.<< >>Did Spurgeon believe that the sinner is NOW born again! OF COURSE! For he
>has >been given faith by the Holy Spirit's using the Word of God to bring him to
>BELIEVING IN CHRIST!
>BOB:

Mr. Ross and Charles simply cannot read. This is all a description of what happens as a result of regeneration. For did he not say, “Coming to Christ is the very first effect of regeneration.” is it not the very definition of “coming to Christ” to say the sinner “flies to Christ and reposes in Him?” This is, according to Spurgeon, the EFFECT of REGENERATION.

Mr. Ross, not only does Spurgeon say that Coming to Christ is the first effect of regeneration. In this same sermon, he defines “Coming to Christ” for us!

He said:

COMING to Christ” is a very common phrase in Holy Scripture. It is used to
express those acts of the soul wherein leaving at once our self
righteousness, and our sins, we fly unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and receive
his righteousness to be our covering, and his blood to be our atonement.
Coming to Christ, then, embraces in it repentance, self-negation, and faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ,and it sums within itself all those things which are
the necessary attendants of these great states of heart, such as the belief
of the truth, earnestness of prayer to God, the submission of the soul to
the precepts of God’s gospel, and all those things which accompany the dawn
of salvation in the soul. Coming to Christ is just the one essential thing
for a sinner’s salvation. He that cometh not to Christ, do what he may, or
think what he may is yet in “the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of
iniquity.”

Notice, coming to Christ, says Spurgeon is comprised of those acts whereby we fly to Christ and receive His righteousness. It embraces repentance, self-negation, and faith in Christ. It includes all things that are necessary attendants of these states of heart.

All of these he says, comprise “coming to Christ,,” Mr. Ross, and “coming to Christ,” says Spurgeon is the very first EFFECT of regeneration. If B is the EFFECT of A, it is meaningless to not state that A does not cause B. If A causes B, then the relationship of A to B is logically antecedent. A precedes B. Regeneration therefore, precedes faith. Regeneration precedes coming to Christ according to Spurgeon, and coming to Christ includes repentance and faith according to him. Therefore, Spurgeon is affirming that regeneration precedes faith, just like Boyce, Broadus, Dagg, and Charles and A.A. Hodge.

Spurgeon clear said: "Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man."

Speaking of A.A. Hodge, here is what he stated about this issue:

11. What is the difference between regeneration and conversion?

The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as including both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature as changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, conversion signifies the first exercise of the new disposition implanted in regeneration, i.e., in freely turning unto God.

Regeneration is God's act; conversion is ours. Regeneration is the implantation of a gracious principle; conversion is the exercise of that principle. Regeneration is never a matter of direct consciousness to the subject of it; conversion always is such to the agent of it. Regeneration is a single act, complete in itself; and never repeated; conversion, as the beginning of holy living, is the commencement of a series, constant, endless, and progressive. "Draw me, and I will run after thee." Canticle 1: 4. This distinction is signalized by the divines of the seventeenth century (Turretin, 50. 15, Ques. 4, ?13) by the phrases "conversio habitualis seu passiva," i.e., the infusion of a gracious habit of soul by God, in respect to which the subject is passive; and "conversio actualis seu activa," i.e., the consequent acts of faith and repentance elicited by cooperative grace and acted by the subject.

(Outlines of Theology, Chapter 29).

A. A. Hodge affirmed the axiom that regeneration precedes faith, and here is what Spurgeon said about A.A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology: "

We commend the Outlines of Theology to all who would be well instructed in the faith. It is the standard text-book of our college. We differ from its teachings upon baptism, but in almost everything else we endorse Hodge to the letter."

I’d further add that this is what Charles stated here using Timothy George’s The Theology of the Reformers in one the articles to which he points us in his latest blog entry:

"This being placed into Christ (insitio in Christo) occurs in regeneration which, Calvin was careful to point out, follows from faith as the result: Since faith receives Christ, it leads us to the possession of all His benefits. Repentance too, which is part of regeneration, is the consequence of faith." (225-226)

While not accepting his theology in toto,Southern Baptists would certainly agree with John Calvin that regeneration occurs after faith and is the result of saving faith in Jesus Christ. This was the teaching of the real founders of the SBC and as far as I can tell has been the theology of every President of the SBC since the formation of the Convention.

But here is what Calvin stated:

"Indeed the Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect... Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it."

(Calvin's Institutes 3.2.34.) Also read this little ditty:

Conversion of the Will is the Effect of
Divine Grace Inwardly Bestowed

by John Calvin

---

The following selection by John Calvin was taken from book 2, chapter 6-14 of The Institutes of The Christian Religion, translated by by Henry Beveridge, Esq. Chapter titles from John T. McNeill. A must read for all Christians who aspire to better understand the Bible's teaching on God's work in bringing a sinner to faith in Christ.

---

6. Men's inability to do good manifests itself above all in the work of redemption, which God does quite alone.

On the other hand, it may be proper to consider what the remedy is which divine grace provides for the correction and cure of natural corruption. Since the Lord, in bringing assistance, supplies us with what is lacking, the nature of that assistance will immediately make manifest its converse, viz., our penury. When the Apostle says to the Philippians, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ," (Phil. 1: 6,) there cannot be a doubt, that by the good work thus begun, he means the very commencement of conversion in the will. God, therefore, begins the good work in us by exciting in our hearts a desire, a love, and a study of righteousness, or (to speak more correctly) by turning, training, and guiding our hearts unto righteousness; and he completes this good work by confirming us unto perseverance. But lest any one should cavil that the good work thus begun by the Lord consists in aiding the will, which is in itself weak, the Spirit elsewhere declares what the will, when left to itself, is able to do. His words are, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements, and do them," (Ezek. 36: 26, 27.) How can it be said that the weakness of the human will is aided so as to enable it to aspire effectually to the choice of good, when the fact is, that it must be wholly transformed and renovated? If there is any softness in a stone; if you can make it tender, and flexible into any shape, then it may be said, that the human heart may be shaped for rectitude, provided that which is imperfect in it is supplemented by divine grace. But if the Spirit, by the above similitude, meant to show that no good can ever be extracted from our heart until it is made altogether new, let us not attempt to share with Him what He claims for himself alone. If it is like turning a stone into flesh when God turns us to the study of rectitude, everything proper to our own will is abolished, and that which succeeds in its place is wholly of God. I say the will is abolished, but not in so far as it is will, for in conversion everything essential to our original nature remains: I also say, that it is created anew, not because the will then begins to exist, but because it is turned from evil to good.

This, I maintains is wholly the work of God, because, as the Apostle testifies, we are not "sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves," (2 Cor. 3: 5.) Accordingly, he elsewhere says, not merely that God assists the weak or corrects the depraved will, but that he worketh in us to will, (Philip. 2: 13.) From this it is easily inferred, as I have said, that everything good in the will is entirely the result of grace. In the same sense, the Apostle elsewhere says, "It is the same God which worketh all in all," (I Cor. 12: 6.) For he is not there treating of universal government, but declaring that all the good qualities which believers possess are due to God. In using the term "all," he certainly makes God the author of spiritual life from its beginning to its end. This he had previously taught in different terms, when he said that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him," (1 Cor. 8: 6;) thus plainly extolling the new creation, by which everything of our common nature is destroyed. There is here a tacit antithesis between Adam and Christ, which he elsewhere explains more clearly when he says, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2: 10.) His meaning is to show in this way that our salvation is gratuitous because the beginning of goodness is from the second creation which is obtained in Christ. If any, even the minutest, ability were in ourselves, there would also be some merit. But to show our utter destitution, he argues that we merit nothing, because we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has prepared; again intimating by these words, that all the fruits of good works are originally and immediately from God. Hence the Psalmist, after saying that the Lord "has made us," to deprive us of all share in the work, immediately adds, "not we ourselves." That he is speaking of regeneration, which is the commencement of the spiritual life, is obvious from the context, in which the next words are, "we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture," (Psalm 100: 3.) Not contented with simply giving God the praise of our salvation, he distinctly excludes us from all share in it, just as if he had said that not one particle remains to man as a ground of boasting. The whole is of God.

7. It is not a case of the believer's "cooperation" with grace; the will is first actuated through grace

But perhaps there will be some who, while they admit that the will is in its own nature averse to righteousness, and is converted solely by the power of God, will yet hold that, when once it is prepared, it performs a part in acting. This they found upon the words of Augustine, that grace precedes every good work; the will accompanying, not leading; a handmaid, and not a guide, (August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) The words thus not improperly used by this holy writer, Lombard preposterously wrests to the above effect, (Lombard, lib. 2, Dist. 25.) But I maintain, that as well in the words of the Psalmist which I have quoted, as in other passages of Scripture, two things are clearly taught, viz., that the Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself. In as much as it is prevented by grace, I have no objection to your calling it a handmaid; but in as much as when formed again, it is the work of the Lord, it is erroneous to say, that it accompanies preventing grace as a voluntary attendant. Therefore, Chrysostom is inaccurate in saying, that grace cannot do any thing without will, nor will any thing without grace, (Serm. de Invent. Sanct. Crucis;) as if grace did not, in terms of the passage lately quoted from Paul, produce the very will itself. The intention of Augustine, in calling the human will the handmaid of grace, was not to assign it a kind of second place to grace in the performance of good works. His object merely was to refute the pestilential dogma of Pelagius, who made human merit the first cause of salvation. As was sufficient for his purpose at the time, he contends that grace is prior to all merit, while, in the meantime, he says nothing of the other question as to the perpetual effect of grace, which, however, he handles admirably in other places. For in saying, as he often does, that the Lord prevents the unwilling in order to make him willing, and follows after the willing that he may not will in vain, he makes Him the sole author of good works. Indeed, his sentiments on this subject are too clear to need any lengthened illustration. "Men," says he, "labour to find in our will something that is our own, and not God's; how they can find it, I wot not," (August. de Remiss. Peccat., lib. 2 c. 18.) In his First Book against Pelagius and Celestius, expounding the saying of Christ, "Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, cometh unto me," (John 6: 45,) he says, "The will is aided not only so as to know what is to be done, but also to do what it knows." And thus, when God teaches not by the letter of the Law, but by the grace of the Spirit, he so teaches, that every one who has learned, not only knowing, sees, but also willing, desires, and acting, performs.

8. Scripture imputes to God all that is for our benefit

Since we are now occupied with the chief point on which the controversy turns, let us give the reader the sum of the matter in a few, and those most unambiguous, passages of Scripture; thereafter, lest any one should charge us with distorting Scripture, let us show that the truth, which we maintain to be derived from Scripture, is not unsupported by the testimony of this holy man, (I mean Augustine.) I deem it unnecessary to bring forward every separate passage of Scripture in confirmation of my doctrine. A selection of the most choice passages will pave the way for the understanding of all those which lie scattered up and down in the sacred volume. On the other hand, I thought it not out of place to show my accordance with a man whose authority is justly of so much weight in the Christian world. It is certainly easy to prove that the commencement of good is only with God, and that none but the elect have a will inclined to good. But the cause of election must be sought out of man; and hence it follows that a right will is derived not from man himself, but from the same good pleasure by which we were chosen before the creation of the world. Another argument much akin to this may be added. The beginning of right will and action being of faith, we must see whence faith itself is. But since Scripture proclaims throughout that it is the free gift of God, it follows, that when men, who are with their whole soul naturally prone to evil, begin to have a good will, it is owing to mere grace. Therefore, when the Lord, in the conversion of his people, sets down these two things as requisite to be done, viz., to take away the heart of stone, and give a heart of flesh, he openly declares, that, in order to our conversion to righteousness, what is ours must be taken away, and that what is substituted in its place is of himself. Nor does he declare this in one passage only. For he says in Jeremiah "I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever;" and a little after he says, "I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me," (Jer. 32: 39, 40.) Again, in Ezekiel, "I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh," (Ezek. 11: 19.) He could not more clearly claim to himself, and deny to us, everything good and right in our will, than by declaring, that in our conversion there is the creation of a new spirit and a new heart. It always follows, both that nothing good can proceed from our will until it be formed again, and that after it is formed again in so far as it is good, it is of God, and not of us.

9. The Prayers in Scripture Especially Show how the beginning, continuation, and end of our blessedness come from God alone.

With this view, likewise the prayers of the saints correspond. Thus Solomon prays that the Lord may "incline our hearts unto him, to walk in his ways, and keep his commandments" (1 Kings 8: 58;) intimating that our heart is perverse, and naturally indulges in rebellion against the Divine law, until it be turned. Again, it is said in the Psalms, "Incline my heart unto thy testimonies," (Ps. 119: 36.) For we should always note the antithesis between the rebellious movement of the heart, and the correction by which it is subdued to obedience. David feeling for the time that he was deprived of directing grace, prays, "Create in me a clean heart, 0 God; and renew a right spirit within me," (Ps. 51: 10.) Is not this an acknowledgement that all the parts of the heart are full of impurity, and that the soul has received a twist, which has turned it from straight to crooked? And then, in describing the cleansing, which he earnestly demands as a thing to be created by God, does he not ascribe the work entirely to Him? If it is objected, that the prayer itself is a symptom of a pious and holy affection, it is easy to reply, that although David had already in some measure repented, he was here contrasting the sad fall which he had experienced with his former state. Therefore, speaking in the person of a man alienated from God, he properly prays for the blessings which God bestows upon his elect in regeneration. Accordingly, like one dead, he desires to be created anew, so as to become, instead of a slave of Satan, an instrument of the Holy Spirit. Strange and monstrous are the longings of our pride. There is nothing which the Lord enjoins more strictly than the religious observance of his Sabbath, in other words resting from our works; but in nothing do we show greater reluctance than to renounce our own works, and give due place to the works of God. Did not arrogance stand in the way, we could not overlook the clear testimony which Christ has borne to the efficacy of his grace. "I," said he, "am the true vine, and my Father is the husband man." "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me," (John 15: 1, 4.) If we can no more bear fruit of ourselves than a vine can bud when rooted up and deprived of moisture, there is no longer any room to ask what the aptitude of our nature is for good. There is no ambiguity in the conclusion, "For without me ye can do nothing." He says not that we are too weak to suffice for ourselves; but, by reducing us to nothing, he excludes the idea of our possessing any, even the least ability. If, when engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like the vine, which draws its vegetative power from the moisture of the ground, and the dew of heaven, and the fostering warmth of the sun, I see nothing in a good work, which we can call our own, without trenching upon what is due to God. It is vain to have recourse to the frivolous cavil, that the sap and the power of producing are already contained in the vine, and that, therefore, instead of deriving everything from the earth or the original root, it contributes something of its own. Our Saviour's words simply mean, that when separated from him, we are nothing but dry, useless wood, because, when so separated, we have no power to do good, as he elsewhere says, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up," (Matth. 15: 13.) Accordingly, in the passage already quoted from the Apostle Paul, he attributes the whole operation to God, "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure," (Philip. 2: 13.) The first part of a good work is the will, the second is vigorous effort in the doing of it. God is the author of both. It is, therefore, robbery from God to arrogate anything to ourselves, either in the will or the act. Were it said that God gives assistance to a weak will, something might be left us; but when it is said that he makes the will, every thing good in it is placed without us. Moreover, since even a good will is still weighed down by the burden of the flesh, and prevented from rising, it is added, that, to meet the difficulties of the contest, God supplies the persevering effort until the effect is obtained. Indeed, the Apostle could not otherwise have said, as he elsewhere does, that "it is the same God which worketh all in all," (1 Cor. 12: 6;) words comprehending, as we have already observed, (sec. 6,) the whole course of the spiritual life. For which reason, David, after praying, "Teach me thy way, O Lord, I will walk in thy truths" adds, "unite my heart to fear thy name," (Ps. 86: 11;) by these words intimating, that even those who are well-affected are liable to so many distractions that they easily become vain, and fall away, if not strengthened to persevere. And hence, in another passage, after praying, "Order my steps in thy word," he requests that strength also may be given him to carry on the war, "Let not any iniquity have dominion over me," (Ps. 119: 133.) In this way, the Lord both begins and perfects the good work in us, so that it is due to Him, first, that the will conceives a love of rectitude, is inclined to desire, is moved and stimulated to pursue it; secondly, that this choice, desire, and endeavour fail not, but are carried forward to effect; and, lastly, that we go on without interruption, and persevere even to the end.

10. God's Activity Does not Produce a Possibility That we Can Exhaust, but an Actuality to Which We Cannot Add

This movement of the will is not of that description which was for many ages taught and believed, viz., a movement which thereafter leaves us the choice to obey or resist it, but one which affects us efficaciously. We must, therefore, repudiate the oft-repeated sentiment of Chrysostom, "Whom he draws, he draws willingly;" insinuating that the Lord only stretches out his hand, and waits to see whether we will be pleased to take his aid. We grant that, as man was originally constituted, he could incline to either side, but since he has taught us by his example how miserable a thing free will is if God works not in us to will and to do, of what use to us were grace imparted in such scanty measure? Nay, by our own ingratitude, we obscure and impair divine grace. The Apostle's doctrine is not, that the grace of a good will is offered to us if we will accept of it, but that God himself is pleased so to work in us as to guide, turn, and govern our heart by his Spirit, and reign in it as his own possession. Ezekiel promises that a new spirit will be given to the elect, not merely that they may be able to walk in his precepts, but that they may really walk in them, (Ezek. 11: 19; 36: 27.) And the only meaning which can be given to our Saviour's words, "Every man, therefore, that has heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me," (John 6: 45,) is, that the grace of God is effectual in itself. This Augustine maintains in his book De Praedestinatione Sancta. This grace is not bestowed on all promiscuously, according to the common brocard, (of Occam, if I mistake not,) that it is not denied to any one who does what in him lies. Men are indeed to be taught that the favour of God is offered, without exception, to all who ask it; but since those only begin to ask whom heaven by grace inspires, even this minute portion of praise must not be withheld from him. It is the privilege of the elect to be regenerated by the Spirit of God, and then placed under his guidance and government. Wherefore Augustine justly derides some who arrogate to themselves a certain power of willing, as well as censures others who imagine that that which is a special evidence of gratuitous election is given to all, (August. de Verbis Apost. Serm. 21.) He says, "Nature is common to all, but not grace;" and he calls it a showy acuteness "which shines by mere vanity, when that which God bestows, on whom he will is attributed generally to all." Elsewhere he says, "How came you? By believing. Fear, lest by arrogating to yourself the merit of finding the right way, you perish from the right way. I came, you say, by free choice, came by my own will. Why do you boast? Would you know that even this was given you? Hear Christ exclaiming, 'No man comets unto me, except the Father which has sent me draw him.'" And from the words of John, (6: 44,) he infers it to be an incontrovertible fact, that the hearts of believers are so effectually governed from above, that they follow with undeviating affection. "Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him" (I John 3: 9.) That intermediate movement which the sophists imagine, a movement which every one is free to obey or to reject, is obviously excluded by the doctrine of effectual perseverance.

11. Perseverance is Exclusively God's Work; It is Neither a Reward Nor a Compliment of our Individual Act

As to perseverance, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as the gratuitous gift of God, had not the very pernicious error prevailed, that it is bestowed in proportion to human merit, according to the reception which each individual gives to the first grace. This having given rise to the idea that it was entirely in our own power to receive or reject the offered grace of God, that idea is no sooner exploded than the error founded on it must fall. The error, indeed, is twofold. For, besides teaching that our gratitude for the first grace and our legitimate use of it is rewarded by subsequent supplies of grace, its abettors add that, after this, grace does not operate alone, but only co-operates with ourselves. As to the former, we must hold that the Lord, while he daily enriches his servants, and loads them with new gifts of his grace, because he approves of and takes pleasure in the work which he has begun, finds that in them which he may follow up with larger measures of grace. To this effect are the sentences, "To him that has shall be given." "Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things," (Matth. 25: 21, 23, 29; Luke 19: 17, 26.) But here two precautions are necessary. It must not be said that the legitimate use of the first grace is rewarded by subsequent measures of grace, as if man rendered the grace of God effectual by his own industry, nor must it be thought that there is any such remuneration as to make it cease to be the gratuitous grace of God. I admit, then, that believers may expect as a blessing from God, that the better the use they make of previous, the larger the supplies they will receive of future grace; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will. The trite distinction of operating and co-operating grace is employed no less sinistrously than unhappily. Augustine, indeed, used it, but softened it by a suitable definition, viz., that God, by co-operating, perfects what he begins by operating, - that both graces are the same, but obtain different names from the different manner in which they produce their effects. Whence it follows, that he does not make an apportionment between God and man, as if a proper movement on the part of each produced a mutual concurrence. All he does is to mark a multiplication of grace. To this effect, accordingly, he elsewhere says, that in man good will precedes many gifts from God; but among these gifts is this good will itself. (August. Enchiridion ad Laurent. cap. 32.) Whence it follows, that nothing is left for the will to arrogate as its own. This Paul has expressly stated. For, after saying, "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do," he immediately adds, "of his good pleasure," (Philip. 2: 13;) indicating by this expression, that the blessing is gratuitous. As to the common saying, that after we have given admission to the first grace, our efforts co-operate with subsequent grace, this is my answer: - If it is meant that after we are once subdued by the power of the Lord to the obedience of righteousness, we proceed voluntarily, and are inclined to follow the movement of grace, I have nothing to object. For it is most certain, that where the grace of God reigns, there is also this readiness to obey. And whence this readiness, but just that the Spirit of God being everywhere consistent with himself, after first begetting a principle of obedience, cherishes and strengthens it for perseverance? If, again, it is meant that man is able of himself to be a fellow-labourer with the grace of God, I hold it to be a most pestilential delusion.

12. Man Cannot Ascribe to Himself Even One Single Good Work Apart From God's Grace

In support of this view, some make an ignorant and false application of the Apostle's words: "I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me," (1 Cor. 15: 10.) The meaning they give them is, that as Paul might have seemed to speak somewhat presumptuously in preferring himself to all the other apostles, he corrects the expression so far by referring the praise to the grace of God, but he, at the same time, calls himself a co-operator with grace. It is strange that this should have proved a stumbling-block to so many writers, otherwise respectable. The Apostle says not that the grace of God laboured with him so as to make him a co-partner in the labour. He rather transfers the whole merit of the labour to grace alone, by thus modifying his first expression, "It was not I," says he, "that laboured, but the grace of God that was present with me." Those who have adopted the erroneous interpretation have been misled by an ambiguity in the expression, or rather by a preposterous translation, in which the force of the Greek article is overlooked. For to take the words literally, the Apostle does not say that grace was a fellow-worker with him, but that the grace which was with him was sole worker. And this is taught not obscurely, though briefly, by Augustine when he says, "Good will in man precedes many gifts from God, but not all gifts, seeing that the will which precedes is itself among the number." He adds the reason, "for it is written, 'the God of my mercy shall prevent me,' (Ps. 59: 10,) and 'Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me,' (Ps. 23: 6;) it prevents him that is unwilling, and makes him willing; it follows him that is willing, that he may not will in vain." To this Bernard assents, introducing the Church as praying thus, "Draw me, who am in some measure unwilling, and make me willing; draw me, who am sluggishly lagging, and make me run," (Serm. 2 in Cantic.)

13. Augustine Also Recognizes No Independent Activity of the Human Will

Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest the Pelagians of our age, I mean the sophists of the Sorbonne, charge us after their wont with being opposed to all antiquity. In this indeed they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom of old a similar charge was brought against Augustine. In the second chapter of his Treatise De Correptione et Gratis, addressed to Valentinus, Augustine explains at length what I will state briefly, but in his own words, that to Adam was given the grace of persevering in goodness if he had the will; to us it is given to will, and by will overcome concupiscence: that Adam, therefore, had the power if he had the will, but did not will to have the power, whereas to us is given both the will and the power; that the original freedom of man was to be able not to sin, but that we have a much greater freedom, viz., not to be able to sin. And lest it should be supposed, as Lombard erroneously does, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) that he is speaking of the perfection of the future state, he shortly after removes all doubt when he says, "For so much is the will of the saints inflamed by the Holy Spirit, that they are able, because they are willing; and willing, because God worketh in them so to will." For if, in such weakness, (in which, however, to suppress pride, "strength" must be made "perfect,") their own will is left to them, in such sense that, by the help of God, they are able, if they will, while at the same time God does not work in them so as to make them will; among so many temptations and infirmities the will itself would give way, and, consequently, they would not be able to persevere. Therefore, to meet the infirmity of the human will, and prevent it from failing, how weak soever it might be, divine grace was made to act on it inseparably and uninterruptedly. Augustine (ibid. cap. 14.) next entering fully into the question, how our hearts follow the movement when God affects them, necessarily says, indeed, that the Lord draws men by their own wills; wills, however, which he himself has produced. We have now an attestation by Augustine to the truth which we are specially desirous to maintain, viz., that the grace offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has full liberty of choosing to receive or reject, but a grace which produces in the heart both choice and will: so that all the good works which follow after are its fruit and effect; the only will which yields obedience being the will which grace itself has made. In another place, Augustine uses these words, "Every good work in us is performed only by grace," (August. Ep. 105.)

14. Augustine Does not Eliminate Man's Will, but Makes it Wholly Dependent on Grace.

In saying elsewhere that the will is not taken away by grace, but out of bad is changed into good, and after it is good is assisted, - he only means, that man is not drawn as if by an extraneous impulses without the movement of the heart, but is inwardly affected so as to obey from the heart. Declaring that grace is given specially and gratuitously to the elect, he writes in this way to Boniface: "We know that Divine grace is not given to all men, and that to those to whom it is given, it is not given either according to the merit of works, or according to the merit of the will, but by free grace: in regard to those to whom it is not given, we know that the not giving of it is a just judgement from God," (August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) In the same epistle, he argues strongly against the opinion of those who hold that subsequent grace is given to human merit as a reward for not rejecting the first grace. For he presses Pelagius to confess that gratuitous grace is necessary to us for every action, and that merely from the fact of its being truly grace, it cannot be the recompense of works. But the matter cannot be more briefly summed up than in the eighth chapter of his Treatise De Correptione et Gratia, where he shows, First, that human will does not by liberty obtain grace, but by grace obtains liberty. Secondly, that by means of the same grace, the heart being impressed with a feeling of delight, is trained to persevere, and strengthened with invincible fortitude. Thirdly, that while grace governs the will, it never falls; but when grace abandons it, it falls forthwith. Fourthly, that by the free mercy of God, the will is turned to good, and when turned, perseveres. Fifthly, that the direction of the will to good, and its constancy after being so directed, depend entirely on the will of God, and not on any human merit. Thus the will, (free will, if you choose to call it so,) which is left to man, is, as he in another place (Ep. 46) describes it, a will which can neither be turned to God, nor continue in God, unless by grace; a will which, whatever its ability may be, derives all that ability from grace.

The quote by Timothy George is referring to Calvin’s view that regeneration in toto, the full range of its effects is the result of conversion, for Calvin himself defined regeneration as the entire process of new birth, including repentance, faith, justification, and sanctification. Regeneration for him was the umbrella over all the others. It began at water baptism, but regeneration “does not take place in one moment or one day or one year.” Instead it was accomplished “through continual and sometimes even slow advances.” , ... With the exception of water baptism / padeobaptism being linked to this as a means of grace, this is actually no different than James Boyce , who wrote the Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary and who elucidated this clearly in his Abstract of Theology and John L. Dagg in his Manual of Theology. Charles has to pretend these men never existed.

Boyce on conversion's definition:

1. A knowledge of the true God, and acceptance of him as such.

2. Knowledge of personal sin, guilt and condemnation.

3. Sorrow for sin and desire to escape condemnation.

4. Determination to turn away from sin and seek God.

5. Conviction of personal need of help in so doing.

6. Knowledge of Christ as a Saviour from sin.

7. Personal trust in Christ and his salvation.

He states:

The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, appear to be one of invariable antecedence.

Wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present its relation is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives the truth. Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been usually regarded as contemporaneous and by some even as identical. But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen,

1. From the fact that the heart is the soil in which the seed, the word of God, is sown, and that seed only brings forth fruit in the good soil. The heart is made good soil by regeneration.

2. Regeneration (as in infants) may exist without faith and repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, regeneration precedes.

3. Logically the enabling act of God must, in a creature, precede the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence involves actual antecedence, or the best conceptions of our mind deceive us and are not reliable. For this logical antecedence exists only because the mind observes plainly a perceived dependence of the existence of the one on the other. But such dependence demands, if not causal, at least antecedent existence. Here it is only antecedent.

VI. There is not only antecedence, but in some cases an appreciable interval.

1. This is true even of conversion regarded as a mere turning to God. Between it and regeneration must intervene in some cases some period of time until the knowledge of God's existence and nature is given, before the heart turns, or even is turned towards that God.

(1.) This must be true of all infants and of all persons otherwise incapable of responsibility, as for example idiots.

(2.) There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen. The missionaries of the cross have been sought by men, who knew nothing of Christianity, but whose hearts, unsatisfied with the religion of their fathers, were restlessly seeking for what their soul was crying out.

Boyce goes on in his Abstract of Theology to elucidate the relationship of regeneration to the sanctification and treats it as the umbrella for the whole of salvation, including conversion. The relation is one of logical and causal order not temporal. White and Ascol and the rest of us do not deny that God uses means in this (the Word of God), nor do we teach that men walk around for some indeterminate time in a regenerated state only to believe later. Regeneration and conversion are so bound together as to be indistinguishable. Charles has been perpetuating this lie for much too long. He needs to repent of gross sin, for at this point, he is continually committing sin and showing inevidence of his own regeneracy.

Dagg also states:

Various forms of expression are employed in the Scriptures, to denote the change of heart; and they signify it with various shades of meaning.. It is taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh;^[122] giving a new heart;^[123] putting the law in the heart;^[124] quickening or making alive;^[125] a resurrection from the dead; an illumination;^[126] a conversion, or turning back to God.^[127] So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature,^[128] as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed,^[129] as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed. With reference to the mode in which the descendants of Adam come into the world, the change is denominated regeneration;^[130] and the subjects of it are said to be born again.^[131]

The change is moral. The body is unchanged; and the identity of the mind is not destroyed. The individual is conscious of being the same person that he was before; but a new direction is given to the active powers of the mind, and new affections are brought into exercise. The love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost.^[132] No love to God had previously existed there; for the carnal heart is enmity against God. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the principle of all holy obedience; and when love is produced in the heart, the law of God is written there. As a new principle of action, inciting to a new mode of life, it renders the man a new creature. The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for "he that loveth, is born of God."^[133]

The mode in which the Holy Spirit effects this change, is beyond our investigation. All God's ways are unsearchable; and we might as well attempt to explain how he created the world, as how he new-creates the soul. With reference to this subject, the Saviour said, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit."^[134] We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth."^[135] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God,^[136] because their knowledge of him is not connected with love. The mere presentation of the truth to the mind, is not all that is needed, in producing love to God in the heart. What accompanying influence the Holy Spirit uses, to render the word effectual, we cannot explain: but Paul refers to it, when he says, "Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost."^[137]--"but in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power."^[138]

The term regeneration is sometimes used in a comprehensive sense, as including the whole formation of the Christian character. At other times it is used for the first production of divine love in the heart. In the latter sense, the work is instantaneous. There is a moment known only to God, when the first holy affection exists in the soul. Truth may enter gradually, and may excite strong affections in the mind, and may for a time increase the hatred of God which naturally reigns in the heart. So Paul says, "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence."^[139] But, in his own time and manner, God, the Holy Spirit, makes the word effectual in producing a new affection in the soul: and, when the first movement of love to God exists, the first throb of spiritual life commences.

Faith is necessary to the Christian character; and must therefore precede regeneration, when this is understood in its widest sense. Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James^[140] uses the term, may precede. But a faith which exists before the beginning of spiritual life, cannot be a living faith. Yet some have maintained that faith produces love. This opinion is of sufficient importance to demand a careful consideration.

So, in order to arrive at his conclusion, Charles must read his particular understanding of regeneration back into Calvin then state that Calvin did not hold the view of today’s Calvinists. But is this true? No, for Calvin is speaking as Dagg did of regeneration in its comprehensive sense and he also affirmed that the effectual call and bringing to life of the spiritual discernment of men is necessary for men to understand, believe, and repent. This is exactly what we all mean when we teach that regeneration precedes faith, for we are speaking in the more narrow sense, not in the wider sense; we differentiate just as Dagg did. Does Calvin use those words? No, but why should he? He was writing in the 16th century to a different audience. If Charles or his friends wish to object that Calvin doesn't say exactly that, then I'd reply that they need to bone up on the word-concept fallacy. However, Dagg and Boyce also agree on the ordu salutis, and, yes, they were among the founders of the SBC. Moving on...

After discussing Spurgeon and evangelism, the rest of Charles’ scrawled ramblings center on Google images of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, where James White is an elder and on Grace Baptist Church, Cape Coral, FL where Tom Ascol is pastor.

Here’s just a sample of his astounding powers of reason:

Let's look at the data. Lee County is part of the Royal Palm Association, which is part of the Florida Baptist Convention. The FBC reports that after twenty years of pastoring by Tom Ascol, Grace Baptist Church has 212 total members and 201 resident members. In case the numbers are off, Google provides a satellite photo of Grace Baptist Church. (You may need to "move" the picture up a bit to see the church). To provide some context, click here to see a picture of the area surrounding Tom's church.

Tom Ascol: An heir of Charles H. Spurgeon? Not likely.

I must thank Charles for his visual aids. I’ve always wanted to know what these churches looked like. Thanks, Charles! However, this is just the most absurd thing he has ever stated. Charles, did ya bother to read the Annual Church Profile of the Royal Palm Association posted on the Florida Baptist Convention website? A little bird told me that I’d find quite the revelatory information there. S/he was quite correct! FYI, the context is not a Google Earth photo of the grounds. The context is where his church fits in Royal Palm Association.

You might want to look here: http://www.flbaptist.org/images/PDFS/BAPTISMS/Royal%20Palm.pdf

How does one gain any insight into the evangelistic activity of a local church based on Charles pretty pictures and his numbers? Tom’s church has 212 members. Okay, how many attend? In my church, our attendance is nearly twice or three times that of the membership. Oh, and we just baptized four folks two Sundays ago, Charles. The average SBC church is at about 30 to 40 percent of the membership in attendance.

Incidentally, since Charles likes statistics drawn from ACP’s so much. Let’s compare the membership number of Tom’s church with the average SBC church in his association. I'll do Charles' homework for him. He can thank me later.

There are 86 churches in Royal Palm Association, listing 24,075 members in the last ACP report listed on the website of Florida Convention. Ergo, the average membership is 279 to 280. It's sightly less than 280, but, hey, what's .94 of a person look like anyway?

Also, according that report, Grace was at 163 resident members in 2004. So, they have increased by 38 to 49 members since that ACP, as we don't know the total member/resident member number from 2004. Charles forgot to tell his readers that little factoid, didn’t he?

Now, what is the median membership in this association? Charles does not bother to tell us some important facts, and this is where it gets really interesting This, Charles, is why you take a look at the entire association before rendering such comments as you have above.

Charles does not tell us how many churches are under the association average in membership. Would you believe the average membership is just 280.

Here is the median: approx. 80

Here is where Tom Ascol’s church ranked in that ACP: approx 60th. That is to say, with 2 members being the lowest membership and 5377 being the highest, Tom Ascol’s church was ranked SIXTY of 86!

The median membership is about 80 remember. Keeping that in mind, there are 46 churches with less than 100 members.

There are about 59 churches smaller than Grace Baptist.

About 71 churches have under 300.

About 75 churches have under 400.

There are about 78 churches with under 500 members.

Ergo, the average membership, even though it is quite low already is being skewed higher by the presence of 8 large churches, defined as churches of 500 or more. Here is a sample of those churches: 563, 823,1004,1862, 4820, 5377. (FYI, I'm saying about, because I might be off by a digit or two, as I did this quickly.

Charles, perhaps you need to take a course in statistics before writing analysis of this low a caliber. In context, it seems that Dr. Ascol’s church is actually growing quite well, having added 49 by calculating the difference between the numbers you cited and the number in the 2004 ACP. I think Spurgeon would be pleased. Moreover, it is one of the larger churches in the association! By the yardstick you offer, Spurgeon would very certainly be pleased. So much for your astounding powers of statistical analysis. I'd also add that Spurgeon's answer probably would not be "They aren't evangelistic enough," but "God has not seen fit to make those churches large, blessed be the Lord." What matters is a man's faithfulness in the work of evangelism and missions, Charles, not the size of his church.

Addendum, Tom Ascol has responded to the questions about attendance and his ACP in an email. He writes: FYI, we did not turn in a completed ACP last year. We did all of the statistical compilation that was asked, but then we only turned in total membership and I think a few financial stats. When the 2005 ACP for our church was posted, it had several numbers plugged in that we did not report! And they were all wrong...some significantly so. They put zero in the total baptisms, while leaving the other breakdowns blank (which we had also left blank). I may have someone check into this, since we kept careful records of what we reported and did not report. Also, our average attendance on Sunday mornings is between 300-350. Our Sunday night attendance is about 150-175 and our Wednesday night attendance is around 200.

The Claus-complex

As one studies the literature of infidelity, there’s an association which constantly recurs. To take a few examples:

“As atheists, we see God as a legend or fairy tale, and equate God with Santa Claus and Zeus.”

http://www.atheists.org/comingout/othercloset.html

“For many of us, not believing in God is the same as not believing in Santa Claus.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/edward_tabash/outcry.html

“And what is more, most of the metaphysical agencies designed to give people what they want are ones we are supposed to outgrow, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy being examples.”

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=cooke_24_1

“The absurdity of this argument comes into focus if one argues that if you cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist, then he must exist. You can argue the opposite in a similar manner. If you cannot prove Santa Claus exists, then he must not exist.”

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm

“They decided to settle the question by staying up till Santa did or didn't come. So they all found good hiding places and settled down to wait. But, alas, the little fellows soon fell asleep. And the next morning, sure enough, the plate was empty and they all had presents.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap7.html

“And it subsequently became a legend, which grew and grew as people passed it on, not unlike how the myth of Santa Claus grew up until the poem, ’twas the Night Before Christmas,’ which revolutionized the way we thought about St. Nick. ...”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/jason-engwer-has-offered-critique-of.html



The Claus-complex was first diagnosed by Sigmund Freud in his unpublished MS, “Der Weihnachtsmann Komplex.”

The Claus-complex (also known as the St. Nick-fixation) is a childhood trauma.

You see, an atheist is a disillusioned Santist. He never got over his sense of betrayal when he made the shocking discovery that Santa is not a real person.

Psychologically speaking, an atheist may be an adult, but emotionally speaking he’s a six-year-old who can’t forgive his parents for deceiving him about the (non-) existence of Santa.

The Claus-complex accounts for his lifelong obsession Santa.

The Claus-complex can express itself in a variety of pathological disorders. In the case of atheism, the unbeliever projects his disillusionment with Father Christmas onto his disbelief in the Christmas story.

He figures that if he can’t trust Santa, then he can’t trust God.

One symptomatic manifestation of the Claus-complex is the annual attempt to ban the public display of Christmas trees, reindeer, nativity scenes, and bell ringers from the Salvation Army.

In other cases, the Claus-complex presents itself in the quest for a surrogate Santa, such as we see in ufology or S.E.T.I.

This is a textbook case of wish-fulfillment.

Another example is the welfare state, in which Big government takes the place of Mother Claus.

As with any obsessive-compulsive disorder, the Claus-complex is difficult to treat, and recidivism is high.

Libel?

“...but suffice it to say that those familiar with his antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation.”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/06/i-feel-jeebus.html

So Danny is now insinuating that Walton's parents are junkies? Hmm. Sounds like the basis of a defamation suit, if you ask me.

Shooting our own?

***QUOTE***

One Christian's Opinion About DC Comments

I invited a Christian to come visit this Blog. His blogsite is here where after looking around he said....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After being challenged by the creator of the blog to read one of his posts, I spent some time looking around.

One thing that shocked me was the comments section. People, claiming to be Christian, left some of the most childish, mean-spirited, hate-filled comments that I have ever read in a blog.

Nice job showing the love of Christ.

Boy, that sent them clamoring to return to the Church.

I was more put off by the comments of believers than by the comments made by those running the blog. All the commenters did was to help them build their case of Christianity being a false religion.

When John wrote about his deconversion experience, he stated that one of his reasons for leaving the faith was: "...minus a sense of a loving, caring, Christian community". Well, these people are certainly enforcing the notion of a loving community, huh?

A loving and caring community is vital for the church and people of the church to flourish. There must be grace towards people's short comings, mercy towards their failings, encouragement to approach the future with holiness, a celebration of any and all forward motion people make in their lives, and support when there is struggle.

It's been said that the Christian army is the only army that shoots it's own wounded. I don't wonder why some people leave.

--Surly Dave

posted by John W. Loftus @ 7:47 PM

***END-QUOTE***

Since I’m not one of the regular commenters over at DC, he’s not talking about me. Therefore, I’m a disinterested party to this particular post.

1.I notice that Surly Dave has a weekly “Bastard Report” on his blog. I guess that’s supposed to put a winsome face on the gospel, unlike those mean-spirited commenters.

2.I also notice that he doesn’t do apologetics on his blog.

I’d just say that I prefer the way the Christian commenters at DC do apologetics to the way he doesn’t do apologetics.

3.Generally speaking, the Christian commenters at DC strike me as quite restrained.

4.It wouldn’t hurt for Surly Dave to brush up on some of the “mean-spirited” things that the Bible has to say about apostates.

5.If Surly Dave doesn’t believe in “shooting our own,” then why is he sniping at the Christian commenters over at the DC? Isn’t that a case of friendly fire?

6.Is the Christian army the only army that shoots its own? Is secularism such a loving and caring community?

7.On the one hand, apostates hate the church because it’s too lax. They say it’s full of hypocrites.

On the other hand, apostates hate the church because it’s too strict. They say it’s legalistic and judgmental.

8.There’s a difference between the way we should treat someone who loses his faith and quietly leaves the church behind, and a renegade arsonist who tries to burn the church to the ground so that no one else can attend.

Was A Large Percentage Of The New Testament Attributed To The Wrong Author?

Critics of Christianity often suggest that many of the New Testament documents are attributed to somebody other than the actual author. You can find a lot of discussions in online forums, for example, in which critics deny that Christians have any documents written by eyewitnesses of Jesus' pre-resurrection life, and they'll claim that Paul is the only purported resurrection witness from whom we have any writings. Even when a document is said to have been derived from an eyewitness, such as Mark's reliance on Peter in writing the gospel of Mark, critics will often attempt to dismiss or downplay the significance of that eyewitness influence.

A lot can be said in response, but here are several points to begin with:

1. The earliest Christians were highly concerned with eyewitness testimony. An apostle had to be an eyewitness, non-eyewitnesses refer to their reliance on eyewitnesses, etc. (Luke 1:2, John 15:27, Acts 1:21-22, 2:22, 1 Corinthians 9:1, Hebrews 2:3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3) Why would a community so concerned with eyewitness testimony not preserve any accounts from eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, then also fail to preserve any documents those eyewitnesses wrote on other subjects? No appeal can be made to illiteracy, since we don't know that every eyewitness of Jesus' ministry was illiterate, such widespread illiteracy among the eyewitnesses is highly unlikely, and having another person write out a document for you was common in the ancient world, even among the literate. The Christian belief that the early Christians did preserve documents from some eyewitnesses of Jesus' pre-resurrection life, as well as documents from resurrection witnesses other than Paul, is on its face more credible than the skeptical assertion.

2. Eyewitnesses like Paul and James lived until around the middle of the first century. Other apostles and relatives of Jesus are reported to have lived until the late first century, which makes sense from what we know of human lifespans. Disciples of the apostles, such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp, lived until as late as the second half of the second century. At what time would something like 15, 18, or more New Testament documents circulate with false authorship attributions without eyewitnesses like the ones just mentioned noticing it and correcting it? It's possible that a document like Hebrews or Jude may have initially been sent to a relatively small audience, and perhaps some documents escaped the notice of some of the apostles and their disciples, but how likely is it that such a scenario occurred with a large percentage of the New Testament? The gospels, for example, are known to have widely circulated early on and to have been possessed and read early on even by the enemies of Christianity (Aristides, Apology, 2; Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, 10; etc.). At least the large majority of the New Testament, including authorship attributions, surely would have been widely noticed by the apostles and their disciples.

3. The ancient world in general and the ancient Christians in particular were aware of the potential of false authorship attribution, and they took steps to avoid it. See Glenn Miller's article here. D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo write:

"Whatever the reason, pseudepigraphic letters among the Jews are extremely rare....Referring both to Christian and non-Christian sources, Donelson goes so far as to say, 'No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example.'...[quoting Philip Carrington] 'There seems to be no evidence at all that such missives [viz. letters] were freely composed in the names of contemporary persons who had recently died.'...so far as the evidence of the Fathers goes, when they explicitly evaluated a work for its authenticity, canonicity and pseudonymity proved mutually exclusive....The onus is on those who uphold the idea that the writing of pseudonymous letters was an accepted practice among the early Christians to produce some evidence for their view. On the contrary, the evidence we have is that every time such a writing could be identified with any certainty, it was rejected. Inevitably, this means that many scholars seek to establish the pseudepigraphical character of a particular document on purely internal grounds...More than half of the New Testament consists of books that do not bear the names of their authors...The onus is on the upholders of theories of pseudonymous authorship to explain why this strong tradition of [internal] anonymity was discarded in favor, not of authors attaching their own names to what they wrote (as Paul did), but of other people's names....If the 'school' mode of transmission [whereby a school of a teacher's followers composed documents in his name] was so ubiquitous and easily understood, why did none of the church fathers who addressed questions of authenticity view it as an appropriate model for their grasp of the New Testament documents?" (An Introduction to the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005], pp. 341-342, n. 39 on p. 342, pp. 343-344, 346, 350)

4. As Carson and Moo mention above, "many scholars seek to establish the pseudepigraphical character of a particular document on purely internal grounds". Where's the external evidence for the theories of modern critics? If one group of people can consistently cite a combination of internal and external evidence for their arguments, whereas the other group consistently lacks external evidence and repeatedly relies on an internal case that can reasonably be questioned, which group seems more likely to be more accurately perceiving what happened historically?

5. Internal evidence cited against the traditional New Testament attributions is often weaker than it's made out to be. In the article linked above, Glenn Miller uses the example of variation in his own writing style. He compares the writing in articles he wrote several years earlier to the writing in his latest articles. You can notice some differences. And it was common in the ancient world for people, even literate people, to use secretaries and editors. Commenting on the apostle John, Craig Keener writes:

"Besides any skills John had acquired [which could change at different times in his life], he undoubtedly would have had help; even the most literate normally used scribes, and Josephus’s staff included style editors to improve his Greek. John would have been an unusual writer if he published the work entirely by himself." (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 101-102)

That's one of the reasons why external evidence is so significant. It's more conclusive than internal evidence. In these disputes over New Testament authorship, who is it who's putting more emphasis on external evidence, and who's putting more emphasis on internal evidence? With a document like the gospel of John, the traditional Christian side of the dispute has a heavy advantage in terms of both internal and external evidence, yet we're asked to reject the traditional document attribution because of much weaker internal evidence.

6. The early Christians acknowledged and discussed disputes over the authorship of books like Hebrews and 2 Peter. Therefore, when the authorship attributions of the large majority of the New Testament books are universally or almost universally accepted by the early Christians, it can't be argued that the early Christians were unwilling to question authorship or were unwilling to publicly discuss disputes over document attribution.

7. The earliest enemies of Christianity raised a large variety of objections to the religion, as we see reflected in the New Testament, Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, etc. But the sort of widespread denial of authorship attribution that we see among modern critics, in which something like 10, 16, or more authorship attributions are rejected, seems to have been unknown to the earliest critics of Christianity.

8. The fact that some individuals misjudge a document's origins, such as somebody mistakenly thinking that the Epistle Of Barnabas was written by Barnabas, doesn't give us reason to reject other individual or group judgments. Some people have falsely attributed something to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, for example, but we don't therefore conclude that all or most attributions to those historical figures are therefore in a state of significant doubt. We know that the early churches were highly networked, and we know that they sought information from each other when considering canonical issues. Individual X doesn't necessarily lose much credibility because of a misjudgment made by individual Y, and group judgments are often more reliable than individual judgments. Giving some examples of individuals being wrong about document attribution doesn't give us sufficient reason to conclude that all other individuals were similarly unreliable or even that the individual in question was unreliable in every claim he made. These issues have to be judged case-by-case. Raising doubts by citing the mistakes of a few individuals wouldn't be sufficient to make the case for dismissing something like 10 or 18 books of the New Testament.

9. Some high quality documents credibly attributed to disciples of the apostles, such as First Clement and Polycarp's Letter To The Philippians, were excluded from the canon. It doesn't seem that the early Christians were carelessly accepting any document that had any small amount of credibility. The quality of some of the documents excluded from the canon speaks well for the quality of the books included.

10. The fact that dead men don't write letters isn't a discovery of modern times. The fact that it's suspicious if a letter allegedly written by a particular author doesn't begin circulating until long after his death isn't a discovery of modern times either. If documents like Titus and 2 Peter began to circulate 30 or 60 years or more after their supposed author's death, there probably would have been a large amount of doubt about the document among both the early Christians and their early enemies. False document attribution in the context of early Christianity wouldn't have been as easy as critics often suggest.

Metaphysical subjectivism

This is how Anton Thorn, Dawson’s fellow Randian, defines metaphysical subjectivism:

“Metaphysical subjectivism, which is the view that the knowing subject creates its objects by an act of consciousness, essentially that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness.”

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Metaphysical_Primacy.htm

And this is how Bethrick redefines metaphysical subjectivism:

“Metaphysical subjectivism - the view that reality conforms to someone's intentions.”

Why does Bethrick redefine and radically scale back the definition of Thorn?

Because Bethrick finds himself in a quandary. For he is attempting to impute to Christianity two contradictory descriptions.

On the one hand, he wants to say that Christianity espouses a cartoonish worldview.

But the problem with this analogy is that even if Christian theism were analogous to a cartoonish worldview, a cartoonish worldview is disanalogous to metaphysical subjectivism.

And that is because, as defined by Thorn, metaphysical subjectivism is an ontological thesis according to which reality is constituted by mental acts—by acts of consciousness.

But, needless to say, a cartoon is not constituted by mental acts. A cartoonist lacks the power to create a cartoon by a mental fiat.

Instead, a cartoonist must employ a physical medium of some sort to create a cartoon.

So Bethrick is confronted with a choice: he can either try to salvage his cartoon analogy by sacrificing the imputation of metaphysical subjectivism, or else he can try to salvage the imputation of metaphysical realism by sacrificing his cartoon analogy.

Clinging to his cartoon analogy, he chooses to jettison the imputation of metaphysical subjectivism to Christian theism.

This he does through a face-saving redefinition. He swamps out an ontological theory for an epistemic theory. This involves the far weaker thesis that the artifact corresponds to the subjective intent of the agent, rather than the far more ambitious claim that the artifact is instantiated by the subjective intent of the agent.

Dawson's loony-tunes

Before plunging in I would observe that Bethrick likes to repeat himself a great deal. I do not.

Therefore, I’m not going to say the same thing 10 times over in reply to his love of redundancy.

Instead, I’ll try to focus on what little is new in his response.

“Here Steve admits his own hastiness.”

There’s nothing hasty about commenting on what a man says when he says it. If Dawson believes that he has said other things in the past that are directly germane to the present discussion, and if he wants me to take that into account, then he can draw my attention to that material at the time of the original thread.

Dawson has been doing this after the fact, as if it was my responsibility to troll through his entire archive in search of something that might possibly be pertinent to the current discussion.

I think it’s safe to say that Dawson hasn’t bestirred himself to read everything I ever posted over at Triablogue.

What has happened in the course of this thread is that when I catch him in some indefensible statement, he will then, in the next installment, refer me to something he posted in the past.

“All we have here is exposure of Steve's ignorance of my overall position and his own attempt to excuse himself.”

The onus is not on me to shore up the flagging fortunes of Dawson’s current argument with something he may have said in the past.

If Dawson thinks he said something in the past that is pertinent to the present debate, the onus is on him to draw attention to that previous post at the time of the current exchange.

But I do appreciate Dawson’s need for me to argue both sides of the case. To help him out with his own underperforming argument.

If I were him, with my radiator venting steam, I’d also have my thumb out to hitch a ride, leaving my broken down beater to languish in the desert air. So I can understand why he wants me to lend him a helping hand.

“How does the fact that actual cartoonists themselves are human beings like me living in the non-cartoon universe of atheism suggest ‘ontological commitment to a cartoonish worldview’? Steve does not explain this”

Actually, I did explain this at the time—unlike Bethrick, who constantly lacks behind the beat. Dawson originally said:

““On my view, the frustration he projects does not exist; at least, not for me. I can, for instance, direct my own movements; my metaphysical viewpoint in no way contends against this fact. And through my physical movements, I can move other physical things. Steve cited the example of typing words out on a computer keyboard. I can direct my fingers to depress the buttons on my keyboard. If the keyboard and the computer to which it is connected are functioning properly, it is possible for me to type the words that I want to type by using the hardware to transmit my intentions.”

To which I responded:

“At the risk of stating the obvious, this is exactly how a cartoonist operates. He expresses his intentions through a physical medium, such as computer animation.”

If a real live cartoonist does exactly what he described above, then, by Dawson’s own definition, he subscribes to a cartoon universe. Sorry if Dawson is unable to connect his own dots.

“Steve needs to understand (I thought it was apparent already) that I am not a theist.
Had Steve grasped this point, he would see how wrongheaded his statement above is.”

The problem is not with my understandning. Rahter, the problem is with Bethrick, who doesn’t know how follow his own trail of breadcrumbs.

“What has broken down here is Steve's own confused analysis. Essentially, Steve has confused the ink, paper, celluloid, or other technology with which a cartoonist works, with the imaginary realm that he uses these materials to create, a fake environment that is analogous to a universe created by a supernatural consciousness which determines its contents and events. The cartoon universe analogy in no way requires that cartoonists ‘merely wish cartoon characters into existence,’ nor is this what it is intended to illustrate. And Steve nowhere provides an argument to validate the supposition that the analogy requires this.”

I don’t have to provide my own argument since I’m playing off of Dawson’s argument. He is using the cartoon analogy to illustrate metaphysical subjectivism.

But on that thesis, the ink, paper, celluloid, or software/hardware would be as much of a psychological projection as the imaginary realm of the cartoon itself.

“Steve is making the same mistake that Tim Hudgins made in response to the cartoon universe analogy over a year ago. He was expecting the analogy to model ‘exact similarities’ between cartoonists and the god he imagines, even though a strong analogy in no way requires such pervasive exactitude.”

Although an analogy does not need to be (and cannot be) identical at every point, it does need to be identical at the salient point of comparison—otherwise the parallel breaks down.

What Dawson does is to arbitrarily limit the analogy. He also has a habit, when he’s losing the argument, of redrawing the scope of the original analogy.

“Again, if Steve took the time to familiarize himself with the sources that I had cited in my post, he would see that he's merely raising issues that have already put to eternal rest.”

Sources he cited after the fact. Oh, and we will be getting back around to that material. Just wait.

“Note that Steve explicitly affirms a view which reduces to the metaphysical primacy of consciousness. Just by saying that this is true, he contradicts himself, for the very concept of truth presupposes the metaphysical primacy of existence. Consider: does Steve think that it's true that his god ‘can wish things into existence by sheer willpower’ because he wants that to be the case? No, of course not. When he offers a truth claim, he tries to make use of the primacy of existence in that the state of affairs he purports to be identifying is thought to obtain independent of his or anyone else's wishing. The concept of truth is only meaningful on the primacy of existence. On the primacy of consciousness, there would only be what we in a primacy of existence universe call 'absurdity'. There would be not 'truth' as we know it.”

In Christian theism, truth and existence are equally ultimate. God is the primary existent, and God is the exemplar of truth.

“As I already pointed out, the cartoon universe analogy in no way requires that actual cartoonists have the subjective powers that Christianity claims on behalf of its god, and Steve has offered no argument to show that the analogy does need this. Rather, it exemplifies the primacy of the creative will of the Christian god over the realm it allegedly created by noting the same primacy of the will of the cartoonist over the realm he creates in his cartoons.”

If he’s going to drop the subjective powers of the agent from his analogy, then all he’s left with is a correspondence between intent and artifact—between what a designer intended the artifact to be like, and how it actually turned out.

But that is not distinctive to cartooning, and it falls far short of metaphysical subjectivism. The correspondence between intent and artifact is a commonplace of the creative process, whether the creative agent is divine or human.

“In other words, fictional positions are not bound to the constraints of an objective universe. On the cartoon universe preimse of theism, imagination, not reason, is the means of validation.”

In Christian theism, the Creator is the exemplar of reason.

“Consider the implications for Romans 9 here: a potter cannot make things happen by a sheer act of the will. So Paul's potter-clay analogy is a systematic failure. Thus we have failure in the bible.”

Paul didn’t use the potter analogy to illustrate creation ex nihilo.

“As is typical with many apologists, Steve is here attempting to obfuscate the issue by multiplying concepts beyond necessity (which is commonplace in theology) and then charging his opponent with failing to make similar (albeit arbitrary or irrelevant) distinctions. Steve needs to decide for himself whether or not he believes the slice of pizza has 600 calories because his god ultimately wanted it that way. That is, is he or is he not willing to commit himself to the view that the objects of the universe obey his god's will ("intent") regardless of whatever immediate causes he may agree exist as a means of transmitting that will from its source to the object in its final state? What holds primacy here - the obedience of created objects to the creating will, or ‘immediate causes’ which we find in nature? Is it, or is it not the case, that "God controls whatsoever comes to pass," as Van Til tells us?”

Bethrick is trying to play a shell game. He is backing away from what metaphysical subjectivism implies to a weaker thesis of mere correspondence between creative intent and the created object.

But his weaker thesis doesn’t distinguish between divine agency and human agency. Presumably, the words on Dawson’s blog correspond to his creative intent. So does Dawson inhabit a cartoon universe?

“…while now he catches onto the actual point of the analogy, namely that in the cartoon realm that the cartoonist creates, he calls the shots (just as in the realm that the Christian god is said to have created, the Christian god is thought to call all the shots). Is Steve really unable to see the parallel here?”

The problem lies with the way in which the parallel is deployed. What is it intended to illustrate?

i) If this is parallel to divine creativity, it is also parallel to human creativity. It is parallel to what Dawson does on his keyboard. So does Dawson inhabit a cartoon universe?

ii) And, as I’ve said more than once, now, Dawson uses the cartooning analogy because cartoon characters are imaginary characters. And he trades on this invidious connotation to insinuate that if the Christian worldview is analogous to cartooning, then the Christian worldview is, itself, fictitious.

“What is essentially similar to both the cartoon realm created by the cartoonist and the ‘created realm’ of the Christian universe, is the predominating, determining will of the agent responsible for creating each. The objects and events which take place in each are determined by a conscious being outside it.”

The problem with this comparison, as I’ve said before, is that it’s trivially true of almost a creative process. In typing and posting on his blog, the product is determined by a conscious, external agent—Dawson Bethrick. He is responsible for the content.

His analogy fails to illustrate metaphysical subjectivism, which is a more radical thesis. And he seizes upon the cartoon analogy because cartoon characters are imaginary. But cartooning is merely one example out of countless others of the creative process.

“But the Christian god is fundamentally analogous to a cartoonist inasmuch as, like a cartoonist with respect to the contents and events that take place in the realms he creates, the Christian god is said to ‘control whatsoever comes to pass. What exists in the Christian god's universe is what the Christian god wanted to exist in it. What we see in a cartoon is what the cartoonist wants us to see.”

Bethrick is also a creative agent. We see on his blog whatever he wants us to see. He’s responsible for the content.

“This is the analogy. The analogy was never ‘cartoonists create ex nihilo the physical medium which they use in making their cartoons, just as the Christian god created the universe ex nihilo.’ So this is a most abtuse objection.”

Bethrick is now rewriting his own thesis. This is what he originally said in one of those earlier posts with which he thinks I should be “intimately familiar”:

***QUOTE***

So here are some questions readers might ask themselves to determine whether or not they really do ascribe to the cartoon universe premise of theism. Any "yes" answer to one of these questions affirms endorsement of the cartoon universe premise; a "no" answer affirms either that one is an atheist, or, if he thinks he is a theist, that he thinks his god is impotent.

- Can your god create something ex nihilo (i.e., without using materials that already exist)?

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/04/omnipotence-and-sovereignty-in-cartoon.html

***END-QUOTE***

Continuing:

“Of course, if the Christian god did ‘not require a physical medium to make things happen,’ then why did it create the physical medium in the first place?”

A couple of elementary confusions:

i) Making a physical medium happen and making things happen via a physical medium are two different things. God does both. But he doesn’t require a physical medium to make a physical medium.

Making a physical medium is itself an event. But it is not an event which makes use of a preexisting physical medium. Rather, the medium is the effect.

ii) God does not create a physical medium for his own benefit, but for the benefit of creatures that interact with a physical medium.

“This has already been answered above. As I pointed out, the analogy does not subsist on paralleling the abilities of a cartoonist with those attributed to the Christian god by believers in terms of being able to create his cartoons by an act of sheer consciousness (e.g., creation ex nihilo).”

That is what he pointed out in this post. But what he pointed out in an early post, to which he himself drew the reader’s attention, is the his assertion that creation ex nihilo is a feature of a cartoonish worldview—as he himself defined it.

“On Christianity’s view, Steve is just a puppet.”

This is a hackneyed objection of Calvinism. Am I now supposed to cry?

Fine, Call me a puppet. So what?

It’s an honor to be a puppet of the divine puppeteer described in Scripture.

To be a human puppet is to have all the attributes of a human being. I can live with that. Indeed, I do live with that—every day.

“Well, it's good that Steve is here conceding that the analogy at least proves something; above he said that ‘it doesn’t prove anything.”’And yet below, he went on to claim that I've provided no argument in the first place, and yet it seems pretty difficult to prove something unless one has presented an argument.”

My oh my, Bethrick is nothing if not a little dense.

To say that something either proves too much or too little is simply a way of saying that if the same argument can be deployed against either of two opposing positions, then it’s a wash.

“As we've seen several times now, Steve's attempt to dismiss the cartoon universe premise of the Christian worldview because actual cartoonists do not create their cartoons ex nihilo is based on a misunderstanding of what the analogy parallels. The analogy never claimed that ‘the causal process of cartooning’ is analogous to the Christian god creating the universe ex nihilo”

Except for the obstreperous fact that he did make precisely that claim in the past.

And if he chooses to drop that claim, then he’s left with a trivial analogy which fails to distinguish divine agency from human agency—even on his own worldview.

“The over-arching context of these promises on the Christian view is that they are issued by an agent which has the power to deliver on them. Also integral to the Christian context of these verses is that the god which issued them is trustworthy, that it will not lie, that it will not leave the believer in the cold, that it loves the believer and hears his prayers. Now, it needs to be borne in mind that these promises are not my statements; I did not author them - they came from the bible, which Christians tell me is true (indeed, many Christians like to ridicule me for not believing it). It also needs to be borne in mind that much theology is driven by the private recognition on the part of the theologian that he does not live in the cartoon universe that his confession affirms. This is why the more explicit teachings of the bible, such as the promises I itemized above, are frequently downplayed by drowning them in a context fabricated by amplifying surrounding statements beyond their scope and at the expense of the ‘harder sayings’ against which those surrounding statements are pitted. Of course, we should expect believers to deny that such promises are being downplayed. We should never be so naïve as to expect honesty from people who want to defend a faith scheme.”

Dawson now engages in special pleading. Every text has a context. Contextual exegesis is the only exegesis there is. That’s a feature of the grammatico-historical method.

And it doesn’t depend on your faith-commitments. Liberals write Bible commentaries, viz. Aune, Barrett, Brown, Charles, Childs, Clines, Fitzmyer, Goldingay, L. L. Thompson. That doesn’t prevent them from interpreting any particular verse within a broader context.

“There we have it: the alleged creation of the universe happened no how - and yet we're supposed to accept the claim that the universe was caused. How? Well, no how. How's that? No how. The overboiling of the Christian Zen pot makes a veritable Master Po of any internet apologist. Just as I pointed out: the 'how' is unimportant, so might as well deny all applicability of the term when it suits expedience.”

Yes, it was caused—not by a how, but by a who. A creative agent. The Creator was the cause.

“Indeed, in a cartoon universe, Australia could have been formed from a summit in the Andes (like Eve being formed from one of Adam's ribs), while the South American landmass could have been formed from the hip of the African continent after Noah's floating menagerie landed, thus providing a progressive land bridge on which some survivors (but not others) could have traveled to their final destination. Or, once Noah's ark landed, the divine cartoonist could have simply rearranged the continents and the distribution of the animal survivors, wishing Australia into place and magically teleporting the koalas and kangaroos into place. After all, in a cartoon universe, anything can happen, and the 'how' really doesn't matter, for in the end it all happens "no how" anyway.”

i) Dawson’s policy is if he can’t be acute, he can try to be cute.

My point is that if you’re going to attack the credibility of the narrative, you need to stick with what it actually says, and not interpolate extraneous assumptions into the account, as if that was part of what the narrative taught, and then disprove the account by citing contrary evidence.

Unbelievers try to hold a Christian to certain implications of the Biblical account which are not, in fact, internal to the account, but are interpolated by the unbeliever to generate a trumped up tension between the narrative and the evidence.

ii) Dawson is also assuming, without benefit of argument, that all the animals had to migrate on their own steam. Yet to take but one counterexample, sailors often introduce new species into a foreign habitat.

“And the ever-ready ad hoc plasticity of the cartoon universe of theism, which ultimately reduces to ‘it happened no how,’ sees to this. The cartoon universe premise inherent to Christian theism allows the believer to piggyback on the arbitrariness of his imagined god: the sky's the limit when it comes to supposing what ‘accounts’ for the current state of affairs.”

He is once again confounding creation ex nihilo with ordinary providence. His deficient grasp of Christian theology is one of the root-causes of apostasy. So many apostates were rooted in shallow ground. They defect from the faith due to their defective understanding of the faith.

“As I expected, Steve does not come out and say whether or not he agrees with Christianity that the universe has a cartoonish nature. At this point, he should understand what this means if he had been considering what I've been saying rather than merely reacting.”

I didn’t accommodate him by walking into an ambush. Sorry to be so uncooperative.

***QUOTE***

“But Steve does ask some juicy questions here. Can the cartoonist be part of the cartoon? According to Christianity, the answer is YES: the cartoonist can and did play a role in his own cartoon universe. This is the role of Jesus, the god of the heavens who "took on flesh" (i.e., assumed a form like other characters in his cartoon) and intermingled with its creations. In such a case, the cartoonist is of course initially distinct from the cartoon he creates. But as with any piece of art work, a cartoon is full of autobiographical elements which are sourced in the agent who creates it. Same with the Christian universe, according to Christians. We are told that "there is a rational God who has created a rational universe" (The Christian Professor), and that the supposed 'rationality' of the universe is a "reflection" of this "rational God" which allegedly created it. And since this god is all-powerful and "does whatever pleases him" (Ps. 115:3), nothing could stop the super-cartoonist from penciling himself into his own cartoon. And according to the Christian myth, this is precisely what the super-cartoonist did. Development of these points can wait for another occasion.”

***END-QUOTE***

Bethrick continues to retail in equivocations. The Incarnation is not a transmutation of divinity into humanity.

***QUOTE***

Daniel Morgan said...

Steve is just digging himself deeper with comments like these:
By contrast, God is fundamentally disanalogous to a cartoonist inasmuch as God does not require a physical medium to make things happen. Indeed, he creates the physical medium itself.

You didn't call him to the carpet on this, but let's consider it--if God doesn't require "a physical medium", then at least God requires some medium, in which "things" can happen, where we suppose that "things" are separate entities from God itself.

Is "spirit" not supposed to be some substance, analagous to matter, in that it occupies a specific volume of, and position in, space in relation to other substances? Could God do anything without its cartoon book? If it didn't have a medium on which to project its will, it would only have itself. Indeed, your analogy is not only strong, I would dare to go so far as to call it perfect.

Steve is probably just miffed that he lives in a cartoon universe, and was called on it, by those who look around them and recognize that such a universe is just as subject to the cartoonist's eraser as it is his paint brush. No natural laws exist in a cartoon. The "illusion" of them is the cartoonist's desire to have its cartoon characters believe in them. The primacy of existence, as you pointed out, is undermined.

I'm glad non-Christians like us don't live in such a universe. Losing the boundaries of possibilities is akin to living in a dream...a nightmare. This cartoonist can do anything, at any point in time, and I have reason to suppose that it won't. Demons, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, all are possibilities, composed of this "immaterial" spirit stuff, which is kind of like a different palette that the cartoonist uses--one whose colors are transparent 99% of the time, which is indistinguishable [to us] from these objects "poofing" into existence at the cartoonist's whim 1% of the time, kind of like a peripheral/ fancy/ complex character meant to "spice up" the tenor of the cartoon.

I called my deconversion "returning to sanity" for good reasons.

***END-QUOTE***

No, God doesn’t require any medium for himself. The medium exists for the benefit of the creature, not the Creator.

God doesn’t have to do anything. But creatures need a medium to do things—whether in time or space.

For the Trinity to only have itself would be sufficient for itself.

No, spirit is not a substance analogous to matter. And a “substance” need not be material.

Spirits are incomposite.

A spirit does not occupy a specific volume or position in space in relation to other substances.