Triablogue

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Taking a headcount

Justin Taylor has recently run a couple of posts on the question of Christian civil disobedience. Not surprisingly, his two posts have generated some negative reaction.

A number of Christians justifiably feel that our gov’t has abused its authority. That our gov’t frequently goes beyond its Constitutional mandate. Indeed, that our gov’t often violates the Constitution.

And I agree with that.

However, some Christians think this entitles them to break the law. Their reasoning is that if our gov’t is breaking the law by making unconstitutional demands on the public, then we have the right to break unconstitutional laws.

As a matter of principle, this contention is not without intrinsic merit. However, it also fails to distinguish between what is right and what is prudent. Indeed, it’s rather naïve and contradictory.

To the extent that our gov’t is unjust or tyrannical, then it is futile to imagine that you can flout its policies simply because you have the truth on your side. For if the gov’t truly is unjust or tyrannical, then having the truth on your side is no protection. If you’re dealing with a corrupt or unjust civil magistrate, then appealing to truth and justice will fall on deaf ears.

To pick a fight on those terms is a losing battle. For the state has all the powers of the state at its disposal.

So we also need to consider the issue from a prudential standpoint. Even if the gov’t is in the wrong, this doesn’t mean you can defy the gov’t with impunity just because you are right and the gov’t is wrong. To the contrary, if the gov’t is wrong, then it doesn’t care whether or not you happen to be right.

We need to remember what Jesus said about taking a headcount before going to war (Lk 14:31-32). Even if your side has a just cause, if it’s also the case that you’re outnumbered and outgunned, then it would be foolhardy to provoke a direct confrontation. That’s not a battle that you can win. You can’t fight city hall on its own turf.

We live in a fallen world. As such, we must learn to put up with a certain amount of injustice. You may have the Constitutional on your side, but if comes down to their firepower (i.e. police, FBI, IRS, ATF) versus your Constitution, that’s no contest. Like Ruby Ridge, you can make this your last stand, but when the smoke clears, guess who comes out on top–every time?

Finally, the electorate still holds the high cards. If we have runaway gov’t, that’s because voters are too passive or disorganized to operate through the democratic process in order to curb the Beast.

Not only is civil disobedience counterproductive at this juncture, it is simply unnecessary. We can use the preexisting system if we have the political will to do so.

Megachurches

In answer to a question I was asked:

I don't think there's any right or wrong on this. There are tradeoffs. A megachurch has resources which a small church lacks. On the other hand, a small church may have a closeknit fellowship (like an extended family) which a megachurch lacks.

On the other hand, it may be harder for a newcomer to break into the in-group of a small church. Since he didn't grow up in their community, he is an outsider. By contrast, a megachurch has a leveling dynamic.

To some extent this is just a difference between town and country. Big city churches tend to be bigger simply because they serve large population centers. They have a larger poor to draw from.

There are other variables as well. Is downtown a place where people live, or just a place where people work and shop and dine out? If it's a place where people live, there may be more communal sense.

Pictures of God's World

My parents are missionaries with MTW, the missions organization of the PCA. Currently, they are on HMA (which is the PCA’s way of adding another acronym to the mix). I believe HMA stands for “Home Ministry Assignment” but the M could be “Mission” or something else for all I know (I have enough trouble keeping the WCF, BOCO, WIC, RE, and TE acronyms sorted in my skull). Basically, what HMA means is that they’re back in the states to do fundraising before heading back overseas.

As part of their fundraising, my parents recently took a trip to the Pacific Northwest, which, me being Presbyterian and all, I believe we must henceforth refer to as the PAC-NW. While there, my mom took many pictures of the scenery they passed through and uploaded them to her blog and Facebook account. I happen to think that my mom takes some of the best pictures (I know I’m biased there, but I’m also right so take that Ansel Adams). So unbeknownst to her, I stole a bunch of her pictures and uploaded them into this video along with some music I wrote based on the Ebenezer theme written by Thomas J. Williams in 1890 (this is the theme used for the hymn “O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus”):

If I got the details correct, most of the pictures are from Washington and Oregon, but there are also some from California (i.e., the Joshua trees). I think my mom did a good job of capturing the beauty of God’s creation.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Gordon Clark's Paradoxical View of the Trinity

Interesting post from James Anderson.

Craig Keener's Upcoming Book

Michael Brown had a good interview with the New Testament scholar Craig Keener on his March 9 radio program. Keener discusses some miracle reports he's come across in his own life and his upcoming book on miracles in historical narrative, among other topics. (He mentions that the book is going to be longer than his recent work on the historical Jesus, which was around 800 pages long.)

Why Wasn't Jesus Mentioned?

Chris Price has written a good article about the lack of references to Jesus in some ancient non-Christian sources.

Wives & Widows

AMC SAID:
Steve,

Your post makes a lot of sense to me and was entirely accepted without reservation until yesterday, when I happened to read 1 Timothy 5 (my church is preaching through 1 Tim at the moment).

What is going on in verses 11 and 12?

" 11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge."

It looks as though it refers to a class of people (in this case some widows) who made some pledge not to marry and who, if they do, are breaching that pledge and bringing judgment upon themselves.

If this is what it is talking about - and I'd be grateful for your comments - then it would seem to be a counterexample to a general proposition that it is immoral to vow not to marry.

3/14/2010 3:54 PM

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/vow-of-celibacy.html#8741238055126943098

That’s a tricky passage to interpret. This is due in part to the fact that the passage contains a couple of semantic ambiguities. Also because Paul presumes some insider knowledge of what’s going on. The original recipients would be privy to his allusions. By contrast, a modern reader has to reconstruct the background from the context as well as parallel passages in other Pauline epistles. So the correct interpretation is somewhat conjectural.

1. The word kataspreniao is a hapax legomenon. It apparently denotes sexual promiscuity.

2. Pistis could either denote “faith” or some sort of commitment (e.g. “pledge,” “vow”).

3. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a vow to refrain from remarriage is in view:

i) The passage doesn’t sanction a vow of celibacy for younger widows. Quite the contrary, it prohibits a vow of celibacy because their youthful libido and eligibility will tempt them to break the vow.

Put another way, the point of the passage is not that it is licit for younger widows to take a vow of celibacy, but illicit for them to break their vow. Rather, the point of the passage is that it is illicit for younger widows to take such a vow in the first place.

So, if we construe the passage as having reference to a vow of celibacy, then it direct undercuts the Catholic position.

ii) In addition, what it would make it illicit to break such a vow (continuing with this interpretation), is not the vow, per se, but the fact that widows took this vow in exchange for financial support from the church. This is not a vow they made to God. Rather, that’s a contract. They forgo remarriage to perform some service or another for the church in return for the church’s financial assistance.

4. However, this isn’t the most likely interpretation:

i) Pistis generally denotes “faith” (e.g. 5:8).

ii) If the word denoted a vow, then it would carry that same denotation in reference to younger and older widows alike. However, older widows wouldn’t have much occasion to take a vow of celibacy inasmuch as poor, aging widows wouldn’t be all that eligible for remarriage in the first place.

iii) What the passage more likely envisions is that younger widows were tempted to abandon their former religious affiliation (i.e. Christianity) by getting married to a pagan (cf. 1 Cor 7:39). It was a cultural expectation that the wife would adopt the religion of her husband.

For detailed exegesis, cf. I. H. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles (T&T Clark 1999), 598-601; P. Towner, The Letters of Timothy and Titus (Eerdmans 2006), 349-52; B. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans 2003), chap. 7.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Aborting propositions

It would appear that a troubling consequence of Gordon Clark's view of persons, i.e., that they are identical to the propositions they think, i.e, they are propositions, is that it doesn't have the resources to argue that concepti, fetuses, and newborns should not be aborted or murdered.

Putting aside the incoherence of Clark's view, viz., he makes a distinction between the person and the propositions he thinks when there should be no distinction there, we have something like this:

x = y

x = the person

y = propositions the person thinks.

Now, if x and y are identical, then whatever is true of x is true of y, and vice versa.

Call concepti, fetuses, and newborns, Human Offspring, HO.

HO think no propositions, i.e., the set of propositions the person thinks is empty, it doesn't exist, i.e., y doesn't exist. But, where y does not exist, x does not either. Thus, HO are not human persons.

Two possible responses might be:

1. HO are human beings and it is immoral to end the life of a human being. However, I fail to see how a Scripturalist could argue for this distinction given Scripturalism. Second, it would be metaphysically impossible for a human being to become a human person if the latter is just a complex of propositions (HT James Anderson). I don't find this move to work, then.

2. HO do think propositions. I find this view highly implausible. It just seems false to say that concepti, for instance, have positive cognitive attitudes toward propositions. Indeed, same with a newborn infant. No doubt they have this potential, but it is not actualized yet. A potential to think propositions will not work for Clark's view, though. I am inclined to say that if Clarkians are forced to posit that concepti think in propositions, let alone think at all, this is simply an illustration of how desperate their view of persons is. Lastly, it goes without saying that I don't see how this view would be argued for from Scripture.

Therefore, I don't see how Scripturalists can wax indignant about abortion and infanticide.

Christian Science redivivus

“The reasons [sic] Anderson fails to see the implications of his objections, that they are a rejection of scripture, is the irrational and insane world he lives in and his blind and rabid animus against Clark. All these are demonically motivated and reveal a pathological misology of the lowest sort.”

http://calvinatorium.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/why-james-anderson-is-not-a-clarkian/

What’s ironic about this statement is that I sometimes wonder if Scripturalism is even Christian. You see, Clarkians often talk as though reality is reducible to minds and propositions. But if they are truly serious about this, then Scripturalism is a variant of absolute idealism.

And if Scripturalism is, indeed, a version of idealism, then Scripturalism ceases to be Christian. Not even close.

For if idealism is true, then there is no Incarnation, crucifixion, Resurrection, or return of Christ. These are just mental projections. Illusions of physicality. Esse est percipi. The real is the rational.

In that case, Scripturalism is just another idealistic cult, like Christian Science.

Now, perhaps the Clarkians don’t mean to say what they seem to say. If so, then a clarification from their side would be salutary at this point.

Incidentally, it won’t suffice for them to demand a definition of “physical.” For if they take the position that physicality is indefinable, and whatever is indefinable is unknowable, then that’s an admission on their part that Scripturalism is a variant of absolute idealism.

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession (Part 15): The Test Of History

Having discussed some of the Biblical and patristic principles related to apostolic succession, I want to close this series with an examination of how succession has been practiced by many of those who claim it. I'll use as my example the most prominent succession claim in church history, that of the papacy. Ask yourself how well the history of the office aligns with the Biblical and patristic standards discussed earlier in this series.

My focus here will be on non-doctrinal issues more than doctrine. I've discussed some of the doctrinal errors of the Roman bishops in an earlier response to Dave Armstrong and elsewhere.

In discussions of the sins of the Popes, Catholics often cite the sins of Israelite kings or apostles, for example. But a king isn't a bishop, nor is an apostle a bishop. (Though an apostle could serve as a bishop, the two offices aren't the same.) Not only do we have to distinguish among different requirements for different offices, but we also have to distinguish among different levels of evidence for different authority claims. We have good reason to trust an apostle, for example, even if he committed a sin such as Peter's denying Christ. If scripture tells us to accept Peter's apostolic authority, despite his sins, then we can accept Peter's authority on grounds such as the evidence we have for the Divine inspiration of scripture. If Catholics want us to trust a Pope in a similar manner, then let them produce similar evidence justifying that trust.

As J.N.D. Kelly noted in his Oxford Dictionary Of Popes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), the legitimacy of some of the Popes continues to be disputed to this day. For example:

The legitimacy of [Leo VIII's] pontificate, at least until John XII's death, has been contested; it depends on the validity, debated among canonists, of John's deposition....

[Silvester III's] right to be considered an authentic pope is open to question....

Usually classified as an antipope, [Alexander V's] claim to be an authentic pope is still debated, and some historians give him the compromise description of "council pope". (pp. 127, 144, 237)

The Roman Catholic historian Eamon Duffy writes in Saints And Sinners: A History Of The Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997):

By contrast [to an earlier Roman bishop who had been martyred], in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifice to the gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him....

In the misery of exile, surrounded by imperial clergy and far from home, Liberius [bishop of Rome] weakened. He agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius [a bishop who defended the deity of Christ], and signed a formula which, while it did not actually repudiate the Nicene Creed, weakened it with the meaningless claim that the Logos [Jesus Christ] was 'like the father in being' and in all things. In 358 he was finally allowed to return to Rome.

He found the city deeply divided. On Liberius' exile in 355, the Emperor had installed a new pope, Liberius' former archdeacon Felix. Consecrated by Arian bishops in the imperial palace in Milan, Felix was an obvious fellow traveller, but imperial patronage was a powerful persuader, and many of the Roman clergy had rallied to him. Constantius was now unwilling simply to repudiate Felix, and commanded that Liberius and he should function as joint bishops....

Liberius' successor Damasus (366-84), who had served as deacon under both Liberius and Felix, would inherit some of the consequences of his predecessor's exile. His election in 366 was contested, and he was confronted by a rival pope, Ursinus, whom he only got rid of with the help of the city police and a murderous rabble....

Deprived of the support of empire, the papacy became the possession of the great Roman families, a ticket to local dominance for which men were prepared to rape, murder and steal. A third of the popes elected between 872 and 1012 died in suspicious circumstances - John VIII (872-82) bludgeoned to death by his own entourage, Stephen VI (896-7) strangled, Leo V (903) murdered by his successor Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28) suffocated, Stephen VIII (939-42) horribly mutilated, a fate shared by the Greek antipope John XVI (997-8) who, unfortunately for him, did not die from the removal of his eyes, nose, lips, tongue and hands. Most of these men were manoeuvred into power by a succession of powerful families - the Theophylacts, the Crescentii, the Tusculani. John X, one of the few popes of this period to make a stand against aristocratic domination, was deposed and then murdered in the Castel Sant' Angelo by the Theophylacts, who had appointed him in the first place.

The key figure in both John X's appointment and his deposition was the notorious Theophylact matron, Marozia. She also appointed Leo VI (928) and Stephen VII (928-31), and she had been the mistress of Pope Sergius III, by whom she bore an illegitimate son whom she eventually appointed as Pope John XI (931-6)....

Its [the declining papacy's] symbol is the macabre 'cadaver synod' staged by Stephen VI in January 897, when he put on trial the mummified corpse of his hated predecessor but one, Pope Formosus. The corpse, dressed in pontifical vestments and propped up on a throne, was found guilty of perjury and other crimes, was mutilated by having the fingers used in blessings hacked off, and was then tossed into the Tiber. Stephen himself was subsequently deposed by the disgusted Roman crowd, and strangled in prison....

Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside.

The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter. The Ottonian era had led to a temporary improvement in the characters of the popes, but by the second quarter of the eleventh century standards had crumbled once more. Benedict IX (1032-48), whose election was the result of a systematic campaign of bribery by his father, the Tusculan grandee Count Alberic III, was as bad as any of the popes of the preceding 'dark century'. Like his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Rome. He was evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian....

The spread of nepotism and of venal appointments to the cardinalate, in return for money or favours, made the outcome of elections towards the end of the century even less likely to reflect a simple search for 'God's candidate'. In the 1484 conclave which elected Innocent VIII (1484-92) there were a record twenty-five cardinals present, many of them scandalously secular men. Proceedings were stage-managed by Giuliano della Rovere, nephew of the dead Pope. When it became clear that he himself was unelectable, he saw to it that a manageable nonentity was chosen. The successful candidate, Cardinal Cibo, bribed electors by countersigning petitions for promotion brought to him in his cell the night before the decisive vote.

Roderigo Borgia's election as Alexander VI in 1492 was accompanied by even more naked bribery....Yet, for all his ability, Roderigo was a worldly and ruthless man, and at the time of his election was already the father of eight children, by at least three women....

Before the Great Schism, the papacy had derived much of its funding from the vigorous exercise of its spiritual office - payments from suppliants at the papal court, revenues derived from papal provisions, annates on benefices, Peter's Pence. The erosion of papal prerogatives during the schism and Conciliar era, however, drastically reduced such payments, and the papacy was increasingly thrown back on the secular revenues derived from the Papal States - a fact which accounts for the papal wars in defence of those States....

Nevertheless, the mounting cost of papal wars, and the lavish building programmes of successive popes, made the search for new sources of revenue unending. The most notorious of these was the sale of indulgences, especially the indulgence for the rebuilding of St Peter's. More significant still, however, was the growing dependence of the popes on the sale of office....

In the same year in which Erasmus published Julius Exclusus, in which the Lateran Council ended, and in which Pope Leo packed the College of Cardinals with thirty-one new creations, an unknown theology professor in Wittenberg, an obscure new German university, proposed an academic debate on the subject of indulgences. His name was Martin Luther, and he was reacting against the indulgence which Pope Julius and after him Pope Leo had issued to help fund the rebuilding of St Peter's. Raising donations for Church projects by dispensing spiritual blessings was a long-established practice, and few people questioned it....

Devout minds everywhere were revolted by this sort of stuff [Johann Tetzel's means of selling indulgences], and there had been many protests before about such abuse of indulgences. But Luther was not protesting about the abuse of indulgences: he was protesting about indulgences themselves. Luther was a pious and scrupulous monk, who had recently passed through a profound spiritual crisis. Overwhelmed by a sense of his own sinfulness, he had found the idea of God's justice terrifying, and the Church's remedies through confession and acts of penance powerless to calm his fears. Release had come from a phrase in St Paul: 'The righteous shall live by faith.' For Luther, this one phrase turned the whole medieval system of salvation on its head. The saint was not, as the Church taught, a man or woman who no longer sinned: the saint was a sinner who put all his or her trust in God. Good works, penance, indulgences, contributed nothing to salvation. Faith, a childlike dependence on God, was everything. There was a place for good works in the Christian life, but as a thankful response for salvation achieved, not as a means of earning it. (pp. 14, 25, 82-83, 87, 149, 153-154)

Saturday, March 13, 2010

'Vatican officials defend pope on abuse"

See no evil, hear no evil...

Answering the Objections of Dogs and Hogs: Judge Not!

This morning we engaged in our regularly scheduled outreach at A Woman's Choice abortion clinic at 201 Pomona Drive in Greensboro, NC. We stand outside the clinic twice monthly to pray, preach the gospel, and do some one-on-one witnessing to those who are having abortions and obtaining contraception so that they can continue fornicating without worrying about the temporal consequences associated with fornication; namely, pregnancy. As happened today and on many other occasions, when unbelievers become angry with you for exposing their sin and calling them to repentance, the following objections are almost always leveled against us:

"Judge not lest you be judged!"

"He who is without sin let him cast the first stone!"

"Do you sin? If so, then who are you to judge me?"

These canned responses are mere smokescreens used to offer an attempted justification for their desire to get us to shut up. Thus, when evangelizing, I want to provide you with a few quick rebuttals to these responses.

1. "Judge not lest you be judged!"

This response rips Jesus' words right out of the context of Matthew 7. Scripture twisting is the hallmark of a false professor who wants to justify their ongoing sin. Here's the passage with some context from verses 1-5,

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

The context makes it clear that Jesus is condemning all types of judgment, but only hypocritical ones. For example, if I sin and don't repent yet I go on to judge my fellow Christian for doing the very same thing that I refuse to repent of, then I am a hypocrite and have no right to point out that same sin in other believers. Christ tells hypocrites to first repent of their sin (v. 5, "first take the log out of your own eye"), then go and confront other believers who are doing the same. It is further evident that Christ is not condemning judgment altogether when He later says in the same chapter:

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt. 7:6)

"You will know them by their fruits." (Mat 7:16a)

In order to determine the difference between dogs, hogs and believers, Christ commands us to judge a righteous judgment (Matt. 7:6, 16a; John 7:24). This is a judgment call that is made by the believer with an eye to discerning whether the person lives a life that is characteristic of a true believer. John sums up this kind of life quite well in 1st John 3:6-10,

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:6-10 ESV)

When the unbeliever says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" you can respond with, "Then why are you judging me?" Explain to them that everybody makes judgments when it comes to people's behavior and that is what they are doing to you. The real issue is whether your judgment is righteous or hypocritical. This means that you must continually fight against your own sin and put it to death by the power of the Spirit (Romans 8:13). It may be helpful to ask them, "Would you feel comfortable letting a drunk stranger rummage around in your home with your young children present?" The point in asking a question like that is to show once again that everyone judges since everyone must evaluate other people's behavior. This is not only necessary for Christian fellowship but also for safety. Some judgments are righteous and some are hypocritical and for a wicked sinner to make a judgment call on a righteous person who is lovingly confronting them in their sin is the height of hypocrisy.

2. "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone!"

First, it must be noted that this quote from John 8:7 is the section dealing with the woman caught in adultery, commonly known by scholars as the Pericope de Adultera. Almost every evangelical textual critic over the last 100 years has considered John 7:53-8:11 to be a dubious portion of the text, which means that it was probably not an original part of this gospel. It is found in various places throughout the manuscript tradition of John's gospel (after 7:36, 44, and 21:25) and even one extant manuscript places it after Luke 21:38. Also, the earliest manuscripts and many early versions do not have this section at all. Many manuscripts that do have it contain scribal notations that indicate that it was not an original part of John's gospel. The vocabulary and style in this section are very different from John's own writing style and the traditional placement of 7:53-8:11 interrupts the flow of thought that naturally occurs between verses 7:52 and 8:12, further suggesting that this section is an interpolation. Finally, no Greek church father comments on this passage before the 12th century, further suggesting that this passage was not original to John's gospel. I favor the scholarly opinion that suggests that this narrative is a true historical event that occurred in Jesus' ministry that circulated as oral tradition in the early church but was never included in the original New Testament writings. Instead, this oral tradition was later added as an extended marginal note in some early manuscripts and because it is in harmony with Jesus' ministry it eventually made its way into the text of John's gospel as we have it today. However, since this section is in most Bibles, because the average person knows nothing about the text critical situation of John 7:53-8:11, and because believers almost never read the small footnotes at the bottom on the page in their modern translations, a few comments are in order.

First, when the objector says, "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone!" immediately ask, "Who's trying to stone you?" Explain that the context of John 7:53-8:11 is that of stoning an adulterous woman on the spot on the basis of two or three witnesses in accord with the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7). Thus, their objection is irrelevant to our present situation since we are no longer under the Mosaic theocratic kingdom.

Second, this objection is not helpful at all to their situation since stoning someone under the Mosaic Law could not be done by witnesses who were complicit in the same sin. This explains Jesus' comment to the Pharisees in 8:7, suggesting that they too were adulterous. Thus, this objection is moot on at least two counts.

3. "Do you sin? If so, then who are you to judge me?"

This objection assumes that a person has to be absolutely sinless in order to preach the gospel, a notion that clearly contradicts Scripture and reality. We will never be completely sin free as long as we live in our unredeemed flesh, for even the apostle Paul said that he had not attained perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12). The Bible says that there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Eccles. 7:20) and that the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that you may not always do the things that you please (Gal. 5:17). Including himself in the "we", the apostle James said that "we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2) and the apostle John declared plainly "If we say that we have [Greek for "we have" is a present tense, indicating an ongoing action] no sin we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). To be consistent, that means that all people everywhere would have to stop preaching the gospel whether on street corners, in private conversations, or in church buildings because all people sin. The logical implication of this would be that we would have to rid the world of all true Christians. Ask, "So are you saying we need to get rid of all Christians everywhere since no one is completely sin free?" They might get confused when you say this, so go on to explain that Jesus commanded that all Christians go into the world and make disciples by preaching the gospel, which includes a call to repentance (Matthew 28:19), but if we have to be sin free to preach the gospel, then we can't preach the gospel. Worse, since everybody (believer and unbeliever alike) necessarily makes judgment calls on others, we would have to rid the world of all people since everyone judges others in some sense. Finally, like the first objection, this too is self-refuting since all men sin and yet they, an unrepentant sinner are judging you for judging them, thus, by their own standards they too are in sin.

I am sad to say that in spite of what's offered above, most unbelievers who bring up these inane objections could care less about your well reasoned responses. Few will listen; most will not. Their objections usually aren't borne out of an original interest to get help from Christ by removing their own intellectual debris, but to attempt to tie Christians up in knots so that they can feel justified in their sins. May God sanctify us as we seek to put to death our sin as we serve Christ with clean hands and a pure heart and may God grant them repentance through sincere gospel preaching.

Why Anderson is not a Densonian

Since Clark gets his definiton from or rather believes he has support for his definiton from scripture, which he quotes, Anderson’s objection would have been weightier if he had simply provided exegesis of that verse and shown that it does not have the meaning that Clark attaches to it. (Source)

I don't recall Clark offering an exegesis of Proverbs 23:7. But we can start with the authorial intent. Is the intent of this passage to expound on philosophical anthropology? Second, isn't the passage actually referring to the begrudging host, in particular? Even if we could give Clark's reading serious attention for this one man, by what Clarkian right do we have to reason inductively to all men? Third, doesn't this passage really refer to character, i.e., the begrudging host reveals his true character., his stingy heart? There's a contrast between being generous (eat and drink) and being stingy (not wanting to give). So this passage simply refers to a hypocritical person, a contrast between what he outwardly says and what he inwardly feels (Waltke 242-43). Waltke says, "Outwardly the host conforms to his social obligations according to oriental rules of hospitality, but inwardly he is revolted by his guest." In fact, is there ANY exegete who exegetes this verse along Clarkian lines? This doesn't beg the question against Clark because (a) it would be gratuitous to call him an "exegete" and (b) he doesn't offer any. So I guess this leaves us waiting for the I.O.U. on the exegesis, until then Clark's position lacks the support of his "strongest" verse.

Since Anderson believes that there is apparent incoherence in scripture, which he calls paradox, one must ask what are the grounds upon which Anderson bases his seeming demands for coherence from this particular one?

The grounds he lays out in his book.

Further, Anderson’s objection would imply that self knowledge is incoherent.

Besides the fact that it doesn't, Scripturalism implies that claims to self-knowledge are false since such knowledge is non-existent! (Since it can't be so deduced and is not deducible from Bible verses.) As John Robbins once said in an email exchnage:

Please do not water down,
dilute, or make ambiguous the definition of the word “knowledge.”
Don’t blur it with opinion. Don’t bother citing immediate
“self-knowledge” or some such notion, for the Scriptures explicitly
say: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
Who can know it?”

Further, Anderson’s objection would imply that self knowledge is incoherent. For, self knowledge must “presuppose(s) a distinction between the thinker (“he”) and his thoughts (“the propositions”).”

But Clark can't make that distinction, that's the point. Anderson isn't claiming that such a distinction can't be made, he's claiming that Clark's definition presupposes a distinction where there should be none if Clark were correct! So the charge of incoherence has not been met.

Either Anderson simply does not read his bible at all or in his pursuit of an anti-Clark agenda he must ignore passages in scripture from which Clark believes he had support for his ideas. Why Anderson objects to a congeries of propositions but has no objections to the passages in scripture where Christ says He is the truth and the Bible refers to Him as the Word is hard to explain.

Would Clark approve of false dilemmas? Besides that, how does any of this answer Anderson? It seems our author has now "proved" that "light" and "bread" and "paths" can "think" since Jesus calls himself all of those! Also, truth is a property or a value of a proposition, not a proposition itself. So our author has went beyond Clark. Maybe our author can deduce the conclusion: propositions can think from the premise: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Needless to say, the deduction isn't obvious.

Huh? The ability to think [some of] the same thoughts is what provides a basis for a common definition of man, otherwise, we can only have individual men, but no man.

Really? But we can think some of "the same thoughts" as God too!

On the other hand indviduation is provided by the fact that no two minds (congeries of propositions) can be completely identical.

Really? That's not obvious to me. I agree no two minds can be "identical", but I deny that it is impossible for no two minds to think exactly the same propositions, and if we are numerically identical to the propositions we think, then if two people thing the same propositions they are, according to the transitivity of identity, identical. So, what would an argument for this impossibility look like?

Science and Health with Key to the Scripturalists

In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with the Syllogism, and the Logic was the Syllogism. He was in the beginning with Syllogism. All things were thought by him, and without him was not any thing thought that was thought. In him was reason, and the reason was the entailment of men. The entailment shines in the contradiction, and the contradiction has not invalidated it.

There was a set of propositions sent from the Syllogism, whose name was John Robbins. He came as a witness, to opine about the entailment, that all might opine through him. He was not the entailment, but came to opine about the entailment.

The true entailment, which implicates every set of propositions, was coming into the Matrix. He was in the Matrix, and the Matrix was mentally projected by him, yet the Matrix did not infer him.

And the Logic simulated flesh and propositioned among us, and we have cogitated his glory, glory as of the only-begotten Consequent of the Antecedent, full of modus ponens.

But when they came to Logic and saw in their mind’s eye that he was already simulating death, they did not break the concept of his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced the concept of his side with the figment of a spear, and at once there came out the idea of blood and water.

Now Mary Baker Eddy, one of the logicians, called the Twin, was not with them when the Logic came. So the other Clarkians told her, "We have seen the Logic in our mind’s eye." But she said to them, "Unless I infer from his hands the concept of the scar, and deduce the mark of the nails from my simulated finger, and imagine the figment of my hand feeling the idea of his side, I shall never opine."

Adjunct anthro profs need to understand elementary logic

Christopher O'Brien believes that med students need to understand evolutionary biology.

O'Brien is ignorant of the very position(s) he criticizes. For example, not all ID proponents would necessarily oppose teaching evolutionary biology.
If it's licit for secular scientists to use science to argue metaphysical positions (e.g. for atheism or against theism), then why is it illicit for other scientists like creationists or ID proponents to use science to argue metaphysical positions (e.g. for theism or against atheism)?
So O'Brien wants his doctor to "put personal beliefs aside" and "treat [him] with all the modern science that could be mustered...including evolutionary biology." Let's say it comes to light he has an abnormal gene or set of genes which would certainly be harmfully passed onto future generations. In this case, O'Brien ought to never father children. Perhaps he ought to consider a vasectomy or similar.
There's a disputable assumption in O'Brien's post: that one can't be an innovator in the medical field without understanding evolutionary biology.

Aquinas on Rom 9

Some excerpts from the Angelic Doctor's commentary on Rom 9:

*************************************************************

First, the greatness of the benefit conferred on us by the Holy Spirit, namely, that all things work together for good.

To realize this we should consider that whatever happens in the world, even if it be evil, accrues to the good of the universe; because, as Augustine says in Enchiridion: “God is so good that he would permit no evil, unless he were powerful enough to draw some good out of any evil.”

However, the evil does not always accrue to the good of that in which it is. Thus, the death of one animal accrues to the good of the universe, inasmuch as by the destruction of one thing something else begins to be, although it does not accrue to the good of that which ceases to be; because the good of the universe is willed by God according to itself and to this good all the parts of the universe are ordained (341).

For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wage, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither.

For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by His grace He delivers by His mercy alone; and so He is merciful to those whom He delivers, just to those whom He does not deliver, but unjust to none (382).

To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does He will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one?

Although a reason other God's will can be assigned, in the first question the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top an others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the to and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed.

First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why He has mercy on this one and hardens that one; secondly, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why He is merciful to some and hardens others (390-91).

Then (v. 22) he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works ins the manifestation of divine goodness: "The Lord has made all things for himself" (Pr 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (1:20).

But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which He is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom is justice is manifested with regard to those he benefits according to their deserts and His mercy in those He delivers by His grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man He mercifully delivers some, but not all (393).

http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Aquinas_on_Romans.pdf

The Ethereal Evidence For A Physical Presence In The Eucharist

If anybody is interested, I'm having a discussion about the eucharist with a Roman Catholic priest in the thread here. The first post in the thread is about Irenaeus, but the priest changed the subject to Ignatius, then cited some Biblical passages when asked to defend his interpretation of Ignatius. A lot of subjects have come up, mostly related to a physical presence in the eucharist. Maybe some readers will find the exchange helpful.

Apostolic Succession (Part 14): Some Other Patristic Sources

Qualifications like those we find in Irenaeus and Tertullian are often found in other patristic sources as well. Below are some examples, taken from comments made about apostolic succession or some related issue.

"I know that a difference must be made between the apostles and all other preachers. The former always speak the truth; but the latter being men sometimes go astray....It is for these virtues that I and others have left our homes, it is for these that we would live peaceably without any contention in the fields and alone; paying all due veneration to Christ's pontiffs--so long as they preach the right faith--not because we fear them as lords but because we honour them as fathers deferring also to bishops as bishops, but refusing to serve under compulsion, beneath the shadow of episcopal authority, men whom we do not choose to obey. I am not so much puffed up in mind as not to know what is due to the priests of Christ. For he who receives them, receives not them but Him, whose bishops they are. But let them be content with the honour which is theirs. Let them know that they are fathers and not lords, especially in relation to those who scorn the ambitions of the world and count peace and repose the best of all things." (Jerome, Letter 82:7, 82:11)

"So the faith of the church must be sought first and foremost. If Christ is to dwell in a house, it undoubtedly must be chosen. But lest an unbelieving people or a heretical teacher deface its home, the church is commanded that the fellowship of heretics be avoided and the synagogue shunned. The dust is to be shaken off your feet lest when the dryness of barren unbelief crumbles the sole of your mind it is stained as if by a dry and sandy soil. A preacher of the gospel must take on himself the bodily weaknesses of a faithful people, so to speak. He must lift up and remove from his own soles worthless actions as if they were dust. For it is written: 'Who is weak, and I am not weak?' Any church which rejects faith and does not possess the foundations of apostolic preaching is to be abandoned lest it be able to stain others with unbelief. The apostle also clearly affirmed this by saying 'Reject a man that is a heretic after the first admonition.'" (Ambrose, cited in Arthur A. Just Jr., ed., Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture: New Testament III: Luke [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003], p. 149)

"That many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire." (Ambrose, cited in John Daille, A Treatise On The Right Use Of The Fathers [London: Henry G. Bohn, 1843], p. 158)

"Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense." (Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21:8)

"I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there....But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God,' Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, 'Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee,' but 'My Father Who is in heaven,' and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should seem to speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment by means of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them? For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and gain no advantage by the church alone. For the truth of things is judged" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 29)

"For of a custom there is in any case a single period as cause, whereas of caprices all kinds of ages are the causes. And due causes must always pre-exist before the customs of the gentiles and before human laws. I say human, however, because God, as alone knowing all things before they come into being, can naturally also arrive at them by from the first enacting them as law. Men, however, when they have beforehand discerned something, and when they have first formed ideas of certain events, then and not before lay down laws, or make a beginning of customs. If then it was from the apostles, as we said above, that this custom took its beginning, we must adjust ourselves thereto, whatsoever may have been their reasons and the grounds on which they acted; to the end that we too may observe the same in accordance with their practice. For as to things which were written afterwards and which are until now still found, they are ignored by us; and let them be ignored, no matter what they are." (Dionysius of Alexandria, Letters, 1)

"Wherefore, if Christ alone must be heard, we ought not to give heed to what another before us may have thought was to be done, but what Christ, who is before all, first did. Neither is it becoming to follow the practice of man, but the truth of God; since God speaks by Isaiah the prophet, and says, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.' And again the Lord in the Gospel repeals this same saying, and says, 'Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' Moreover, in another place He establishes it, saying, 'Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' But if we may not break even the least of the Lord's commandments, how much rather is it forbidden to infringe such important ones, so great, so pertaining to the very sacrament of our Lord's passion and our own redemption, or to change it by human tradition into anything else than what was divinely appointed! For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered....And let this conclusion be reached, dearest brother: if from among our predecessors any have either by ignorance or simplicity not observed and kept this which the Lord by His example and teaching has instructed us to do, he may, by the mercy of the Lord, have pardon granted to his simplicity." (Cyprian, Letter 62:14, 62:17)

"On which account a people obedient to the Lord's precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones....For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides." (Cyprian, 67:3, 67:5)

"My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord. For wherever the lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord....Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord....Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (The Didache, 4, 11, 15)

Friday, March 12, 2010

The pope gets a promotion!

According to Gabriele Amorth, chief exorcist of Rome (and who better qualified to judge?), the devil has taken up residence in the Vatican.

To be sure, this will come as no surprise to Reformed believers. However, it represents a significant promotion. At the time the Westminster Confession was promulgated, the Pope was merely the Antichrist. But in the intervening years the Supreme Pontiff has been rewarded for his diligent service to the dark side by moving up a notch to the top slot. As Cardinal Newman might say, the acorn evolved into the oak.

Pages

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Monday, March 15, 2010

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Friday, March 12, 2010