Cherry-picking the Confession

HEIDELBLOG SAID:

There is a hierarchy of values within the confession.

Does the confession itself say some confessional positions are dispensable?

There's an overwhelming consensus on baptism. The Reformed confessions from 1523 on repeatedly confess infant baptism and reject the denial of the same.

i) So mere consensus is the way you rank confessional positions? But consensus is a sociological phenomenon, not a principled criterion. And consensus is variable in time and place. What about consensus in the CRC or PCUSA?

ii) To say “Reformed” confessions confess infant baptism begs the question. Is the London Baptist Confession of Faith not a “Reformed” confession?

You may deny it, but to appeal to the “consensus” of “Reformed” confessions to disqualify the LBCF is viciously circular. You need a separate argument.

Kline was a paedobaptist.

Which glosses over the fact that he had a rather idiosyncratic way of grounding infant baptism (By Oath Consigned).

He practice the Reformed hermeneutic.

I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Kline worked out his own hermeneutical principles. He had a highly original hermeneutic.

He taught the essentials of covenant theology.

That’s disputable, to say the least.

Infant baptism and the covenant theology and hermeneutic that produced it is essential to Reformed theology. Baptists deny the same. They aren't Reformed. That's not selective either.

Of course it’s selective. You’re appealing to something over and above the confessions to sift the confessions.

The OPC had 50 years to charge MGK and they never did it.

Well, for one thing, Kline deliberately subverted the accountability system by holding nominal membership in one Presbytery while residing in a state outside the jurisdiction of that presbytery.

Moreover, it’s not as if WSC ever took him to task.

It also seems a little unfair to use Lee Irons' posts to get at MGK. If the concern is with his theology, shouldn't you be dealing directly with him?

No, I’m not using Irons to get at Kline. I’m using Irons to get at 2k. And Irons is operating with Klinean methods and assumptions. And Hart has admitted that 2k is underwritten by Klinean hermenetics. 

Look, this is silly,. Yes, Reformed theology has developed. It did so by rejecting theocracy, which was not essential to the Reformed confession. What was essential was (and remains) that the civil magistrate is God's minister for justice in the civil sphere. What is essential is the basic distinction between the civil and spiritual spheres or kingdoms under God's sovereign providence. The same is true of creation. Most Reformed theologians have matured beyond the views held in the 17th century but we still confess that God sovereignly spoke into nothing. The essence of the confession hasn't changed. Baptism is essential to the Reformed confession. Theocracy isn't.

i) Traditional Reformed statecraft is predicated on traditional Reformed covenant theology. How OT promises are fulfilled in the new covenant. That’s central to traditional Reformed identity.

ii) I can easily imagine Karl Barth or Thomas Torrance or Donald McKim or Donald Bloesch explaining how their revisions and innovations represent the “maturing” of Reformed theology while preserving what’s “essential” to the Reformed confession.

Why don't you read RRC? I tried to make the case there that not everything is equally important but that there is a core. Seems to me that if we never revised any of our views, then you would attack as unreflective traditionalists. But, when the churches get together and revise the confession, as in the case of BC 36, which is amenable to the 2K (see Danny Hyde's commentary on the Belgic Confession) then you accuse us of being unstable. You miss the point.

i) I fault you for willful, arbitrary inconsistency.

ii) If you wish to debate merits of the case for what you deem be at the “core,” fine. But in that event you’re arguing for the confessions rather than from the confessions. In that case you’re winnowing the confessions on the basis of some extraconfessional standard.

iii) Sure, churches can revise confessions. In that case, Reformed identity is defined (or redefined) by churches, not confessions.

The point is that the churches are reading God's Word together, using a common hermeneutic and reaching substantially the same conclusions now that we did in the 16th and 17th centuries but we do see a few, non-essential things, differently.

When I read A. A. Hodge’s classic commentary on the WCF, and compare his exposition of Reformed statecraft with, say, Darryl Hart’s position on statecraft, it’s hard to see how both men are using a “common hermeneutic” and/or “reaching substantially the same conclusions.”

If I didn't know better I'd say that some fellows on this blog are just looking for things to criticize.

Well, that’s amusing from someone as trigger-happy as you are.

The Afterlife

Steve Hays has written far too much about the afterlife for me to link more than a small portion of his material here. Many of the fictional stories he's written have been about Heaven or Hell. See his blog that features his fictional work, for example.

He's written many posts, like this one, about the difference our beliefs about the afterlife make in the lives of believers and unbelievers.

James White Exposes Rob Bell's Parallelomania

HT:  Alpha and Omega Ministries

Law & Gospel

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2002Law.htm

Cynicism, idealism, and universalism

Some crooks are escape artists. I don’t mean that in the literal sense that they are good at breaking out of jail. Rather, I mean that in the figurative sense that they have a knack for staying one step ahead of the law. They leave a trail of broken lives wherever they go, yet they manage to elude justice their entire lives.

Sometimes this is because the crook is very clever. He knows what he can get a way with, and what he can’t. He knows how to game the system. He knows how to cover his tracks.

Or you have crooks like the high-ranking Nazis who fled Germany for countries without an extradition treaty. They disappeared into South America. Die of old age on a sunny beach.

Or you have the rich and power who stay out of jail because they are well-connected. Make a few phone calls, call in a few favors. Maybe they have an open file on the mayor, the police commissioner, or the DA. They’re untouchable because they can sink you if you go after them. A bribe here, a threat there. Incriminating glossies in a manila envelope.

Or you have the military dictator who can act with impunity as long as he keeps the army well paid. He’s answerable to no one.

On the other hand, you have the disillusioned idealist. As a young man, he was a crusader for justice. But over time he becomes cynical. He begins to see that striving to be honest in a dishonest world is a fool’s errand. He’s seen so many crooks thumb their nose at the law, that he loses hope in the system of justice. So he changes sides. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

He didn’t start out that way. Rather, he was corrupted because, from his experience, the system is rigged. It’s futile to fight a losing battle. Might as well take your cut.

Asaph (Ps 73) was within a hair’s breadth of changing sides. Idealism and cynicism are twin brothers.

Universalism is the ultimate in diplomatic immunity. No matter what you do, in the long run you get way with it. Just waive your diplomatic passport in the face of the victim.

Oh, yes, they may have to pay a fine in hell, but in the end they still beat the system.

What’s wrong with the notion that at the final judgment, justice finally catches up with a fugitive from justice? Isn’t that long overdue? Shouldn’t we take moral satisfaction in seeing him caught and punished after he cheated justice all those years? That there’s no escape, no pardon, no deal, no commutation? 

The Evidence Of Biblical Prophecy

A few years ago, I wrote a post that addresses some of the principles involved in Biblical prophecy and discusses some examples of prophecy fulfillment.

Steve Hays wrote a post on the mechanics of prophecy, addressing issues like why Biblical prophecy isn't more specific. Here's another one he wrote on the subject.

Here Steve addresses distinctions between different types of prophecy, such as conditional and unconditional predictions.

Picking sides

Picking sides is one way of revealing your theological affinities.

Who are Rob Bell’s critics? Well, off the top of my head, they seem to be the God-forsaken Calvinistas like Justin Taylor, James White, John Piper, Albert Mohler, Timmy Brister, Ken Silva, Kevin DeYoung, TeamPyro, &c.

On the other hand, his defenders include (open theist) Greg Boyd, (Arminian) Peter Lumpkins, (Arminian/anti-“fundamentalist”) Roger Olson, (Arminian/Anabaptist) Ben Witherington, (Arminian/Anabaptist) Scot Knight,  (universalist) Jason Pratt, ("progressive") Randal Rauser, &c.

Or take the spectacle of Arminian Peter Lumpkins defending Bell by favorably citing open theist Greg Boyd defending universalism.

I’d suggest that if “Evangelical” universalists wish to make deeper inroads in the SBC, they should sweeten the pot by promoting teetotalist universalism. That would win over Paige Patterson, Jimmy Draper, and Richard Land–among other grand mufis in the SBC satrapies.  Teetotalist universalism would sweep the SBC, except for insurgent Founders in the Hindu-Kush.

They could also promote vegan-green universalism for hippie/skin-dippy progressives like Randal Rauser and Glen Peoples.   

Is Calvinism elitist?

Is Calvinism elitist? That’s a common charge. A “select few.” A “spiritual elite.”

But, to the contrary, Calvinism is anti-elitist. The utter antithesis of elitism. In election, the power elite is underrepresented, while the lumpen is overrepresented. Few on the top, many on the bottom.

18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written,

 

    "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

   and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

 26For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

 

 1And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

 

 6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But, as it is written,

 

    "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,

   nor the heart of man imagined,

what God has prepared for those who love him"—

 10these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

 

 14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 1:18-2:16). 

What's so great about hell?

The initial objection to Justin Taylor’s post on Rob Bell is that Justin “jumped the gun.” But, predictably, the objection is now shifting to, “Okay, so what if Bell is a universalist? What’s so bad about universalism, anyway?”

One way of answering that question is to see what’s involved in denying the Biblical doctrine of the final judgment. A number of transcriptions of Bell’s now famous (or infamous) video are floating around the internet, and the “questions” he poses do a pretty good job of illustrating what’s at stake. Ken Silva (of Apprising Ministries) has a transcript, and I’m going to reproduce (and boldface) the key paragraphs in the Bell’s video to illustrate the issue in Bell’s own words.

Gandhi’s in hell? He is? And someone knows this, for sure; and felt the need to let the rest of us know? Will only a few, select, people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And, if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe; or what you say, or what you do, or who you know—or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated, or baptized, or take a class, or converted, or being born again—how does one become one of these few?

And then there is the question behind the questions, the real question: What is God like? Because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message—the center of the Gospel of Jesus—is that God is going to send you to hell, unless you believe in Jesus. And so, what gets, subtlety, sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that; that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good; how could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?

This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies; and they say: “Why would I ever want to be part of that?” See, what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about Who God is, and what God is like. What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, and beautiful, that whatever we’ve been told or taught, the good news is actually better than that; better than we could ever imagine.

http://apprising.org/2011/02/28/transcript-of-love-wins-video-of-rob-bell/

For now I’m not going to discuss whether or not Bell is voicing his own opinion. Rather, I’ll just run with how he chose to contrast the alternatives.

i) Calvinism has no official position on whether the elect represent the majority or minority of the human race.

ii) Accentuating the alleged fewness of the saints also insinuates that God is obligated to save everyone, or try to save everyone.

iii) The word “select” is invidious. Yes, Calvinism has a doctrine of unconditional election. So you could say, quite correctly, that God unilaterally selected who will be saved.

However, words have connotations as well as denotations. The phrase “select few” suggested a meritocracy, like the Marines (“The few, the proud”).

But, of course, Calvinism doesn’t view election as a meritocracy. Just the opposite.

iv) There’s a presumption that Gandhi is in hell because Biblical salvation is normally predicated on faith in God’s promises. Believing the gospel. Repenting of your sins. And there’s no reason to think that Gandhi was ever a Christian.

I say “ordinarily” because we can debate special cases (e.g. the mentally incompetent, those who die before the age of discretion).

And this isn’t a Reformed distinctive.

v) If universalism is true, then, by this logic, the God of non-universalism (e.g. Calvinism, Lutheranism, evangelical Arminianism) is evil and untrustworthy. Essentially, the God of non-universalism is diabolical.

To say that God will send you to hell unless you believe in Christ “isn’t even good news.”

So you couldn’t have a starker contrast. There is no mediating position. No middle ground.

Either God or Satan–and for the universalist, the God of non-universalism might as well be Satan. Evil. Untrustworthy. Unworthy of our worship.

So that’s the issue. It’s not that hell is so great. Rather, it’s what-all the universalist must deny to deny hell.

At the same time, there is something great about the wicked receiving their due. 

Hunting heresy-hunters

Rob Bell, the heresy hunters, and the evangelical culture of fear

Apparently there was quite a kerfuffle this week when word got around that Rob Bell's new (and as yet still unreleased) book Love Wins is, or probably does, or might, support universalism in some way. Apparently it all started when influential blogger Justin Taylor concluded after viewing a two minute promotional video that Bell is a universalist.

http://blogs.christianpost.com/tentativeapologist/2011/03/rob-bell-the-heresy-hunters-and-the-evangelical-culture-of-fear-05/

This is how legends become entrenched. As Justin Taylor has explained, he also had firsthand knowledge of the book. So, no, it wasn’t based on simply viewing a two-minute video.

But that’s now part of the stock narrative by Justin’s critics.

Well Steve over at Triablogue actually read an advance copy of Love Wins and he can report with some authority that Bell is not a universalist after all, at least not if that means "I believe all people will be saved." So I guess this was all much ado about nothing.

Uh, no. My post began with a block quote from Gregory Boyd. Rauser is misattributing to me what Boyd said.

That shouldn’t be hard to figure out. That’s why the passage was indented, in a different color font, with a hyperlink to the source.

I then proceeded to document Boyd’s ignorance of universalism.

In retrospect Taylor et. al were in fact little more than pawns in a shrewdly designed Harper Collins book promotion. It reminds me of the good old days back in the eighties when Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center were Ozzy Ozbourne's best marketing tool. Now thanks to Taylor's gang everybody in North America is talking about Rob Bell's new book, univeralistic or not.

There is always a dilemma in whether or not to respond to error. You might as well say Paul was little more than a pawn for the Judaizers, or John was little more than a pawn for the Docetists.

If you respond, you may draw more attention to the error–but if you don’t respond, you let the error go unchecked.

This unfortunate little incident will soon be forgotten.

I think that’s highly unlikely.

Rob Bell will sell lots of books. And we'll all move on.

I seriously doubt that. Rather, universalists will use this as an opening. So the debate will probably intensify before it dies down.

But there is a rather sobering lesson here. Evangelicalism continues to be infected by a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality which immediately attempts to strangle, or stamp out, or raze any theological reflection which is deemed as beyond the bounds.

That was Ben Witherington’s allegation as well. Then Witherington had to reedit his post when he himself was found guilty of shooting first, asking questions later.

Presumably this culture of aggression and fear continues because the self-appointed heresy hunters believe they are protecting their evangelical flocks.

And when Rauser has a running series bashing Calvinism, does that reflect the “progressively evangelical” culture of aggression and fear? Does that make him a self-appointed heresy hunter who believes he is protecting his “progressively evangelical, generously orthodox flock”? 

Shadowgram

Frederick Ducasse was a grasping old man. Before he became a grasping old man, Frederick was a grasping young man. This world was all there is, so he squeezed every last drop from the tangerine. He made his fortune through cunning and treachery. Making friends to betray friends. He was widely hated, but that didn’t bother him as long as he was rich. He had everything money could buy.

Yet there was one thing he couldn’t buy–immortality. He saw his body age. Felt his body age. Despite diet, exercise, and the best medical care, he was helpless to halt the advance of time.

And now he lay on his deathbed, gasping for every breath. On a ventilator. With a heart monitor. And a live-in physician. Once a man of the world, with a private jet, a gigayacht, and mansions in Newport, Bel Air, and the Côte d'Azur, his cosmopolitan existence had contracted to an antique royal bed in his cavernous, curtained bedroom. Big, empty, and dark–except for flashing, beeping monitors.

He clung to life with every effortful breath. Clung to the fading light. Clung to fading memories.

He felt a great weight pressing down on his chest. He tried to reach for the call button, but he was too weak.

He felt his soul slipping away. Exiting the shell. Hovering above his lifeless body. Then passing through the ceiling.

For a moment he saw this world for what it was–a shadowgram. A shadow cast by the shadower. A shadow foreshadowing the shadower.

His fond old world suddenly looked so flat and colorless. Now he longed for the shadower. For the world above. The world to come. He caught a glimpse of heaven. New Eden. New Jerusalem. Joy unspeakable.

Yet he felt his soul falling rather than rising. Heaven grew distant. The music faded. A receding speck of light as he continued his descent. The air grew darker and colder. Then silence.  

A Christian View Of Prayer

I want to provide an overview of the material we've written on prayer through the years.

Who should we pray to? Is it acceptable to pray to deceased humans? Or angels? Or should we pray only to God? Is it permissible to pray to Jesus? Or the Holy Spirit?

How Scientism Destroys Science

Introduction:  I have been interacting on and off with an anti-creationist detractor named "David" on this blog for some time and I think that his question below gets to the heart of the issue as it pertains to discussions and debates between atheistic Darwinists and young earth creationists. 

David,

You asked, "I really am curious if there is any evidence that you would accept as 'sinking' young earth creationism . . .?"

No, because the problem isn't facts, it's the philosophy of fact. What I'm about to write isn't meant to be derogatory, but you seem to be naively assuming that the "facts speak for themselves".  For example, when evolutionist Mary Schweitzer discovered red blood cells in T-rex soft-tissue, I knew that at least one of two things would happen: (1) evolutionists would deny that the samples were genuine erythrocytes and soft-tissue, and/or (2) some evolutionists would agree that it was a genuine find but would instead argue that soft tissue can be preserved in situ for 65 million years.  I was correct on both counts.  Of course, finding unfossilized dinosaurian soft tissue is perfectly consistent with young earth creationism (hereafter YEC), but given what I've been told by creation scientists, maintaining any soft-tissue integrity via the best cryogenic conditions isn't possible beyond 10,000 years.  Thus, creationists argue that the idea of biological tissue surviving for 65 million years in situ is preposterous.  Nevertheless, because evolutionary "faith" demands it, some evolutionists have dogmatically asserted otherwise, namely, that dinosaur soft-tissue can remain preserved and unfossilized for at least 65 million years.  So why aren't the creationists and evolutionists changing their mind but instead are sticking their ground?  Its because the facts don't speak for themselves.  All facts are pre-interpreted facts that are run through one's mental filter known as a worldview, which consists of a network of presuppositions that aren't testable through the procedures of natural science.  This mental filter determines what one will and will not accept as metaphysically possible.  As Augustine and others after him so eloquently put it, "I believe so that I may understand."  So it goes with YEC proponents, so it goes with the naturalist.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.   

Naturalism Undermines Cognitive Reliability

It gets worse because on naturalist lights, it is impossible to know whether anything is really true or not given the conjunction of Darwinian Evolution with Naturalism. Of course, your comments have always assumed that naturalism is true, that we are autonomous (vs. being dependent and accountable to God as His creatures), that we have the cognitive prowess within ourselves to figure out our problems on our own, without deferring to what skeptics would consider to be a mere imaginative philosophical crutch called "God".  However, you seem to be unaware that certain things about reality that you take for granted and use to undermine creationism couldn't be true if Darwinism and naturalism were true.  Quoting from naturalistic materialists, Darwin himself confessed,

With me, the horrid doubt always arises, whether the convictions of a man's mind, which have been developed from the minds of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Why would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there were any convictions in such a mind?

Physicalist atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland was consistent when she said this:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

 And so my questions for you are twofold:

1.  Given naturalism, evolutionary theory, and the conjunction between those two, what basis do you have to believe that your cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution? And to offer a follow-up question:

2.  If what you say is true, how can you can figure out your problems on your own since the very cognitive faculties you use to problem solve to answer my objections to atheism are called into question by the very process they supposedly arose from?

Naturalism is Metaphysically Contradictory and Self-Refuting

It appears that your underlying philosophical assumption for evaluating evidence is empiricism. But in the process of their argumentation, most empiricists are unaware that they annihilate empirical science itself, the very thing that they have put their "faith" in.  Science depends upon nonempirical ideas such as the uniformity of nature and the predictability of future events in order to function or teach us anything. But empirical verification must apply only to a particular time, place, and entity to be examined. I cannot empirically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow until I test the hypothesis tomorrow. But the past cannot be used to predict the future if no metaphysical truths are valid. Thus, science as we know it would then become impossible. Knowledge (science in this case) could mean no more than the reception of unrelated and there unintelligible sensations, bombarding the senses from the physical world.

Also, when you use logic and reason to suggest that YEC is invalid or contradicts "well-established facts", you are utilizing cognitive tools that are not themselves empirically verifiable. In other words, the laws, concepts, criteria, and propositions you appeal to to make your case are not themselves testable, demonstrable, or empirically proven. They are abstract, immaterial, and universal. Since when has anyone seen, smelled, or touched the law of non-contradiction? Thus, reasoning itself is destroyed as the human mind is reduced to a random collection of atoms and electrochemical events that we cannot assume is anything more than a statistical anomaly. We cannot even speak of the brain revealing a pattern if all knowledge is purely empirical. And then who is to say that the atomic event constituting my brain leading me to believe in Jesus Christ is any more or less "valid" than the atomic event of your brain leading you to put your "faith" in naturalistic materialism? Thus, the validity of any argument involves an appeal to various metaphysical (transcendental) criteria.

For instance, how do we know that to be an empiricist is valid? That is a metaphysical question. A material event accessible to the senses is neither valid nor invalid; it is just an event. This is why there are no such things as brute facts. All facts are interpreted facts.

In my experience of interacting with intelligent unbelievers, they correctly note that the creationist assumes the metaphysical propositions of the Bible before coming to the evidence. However, I have also noted that fellows like yourself rarely see that you are metaphysician too; just one of another kind. You too are a person of faith. You presuppose materialism by limiting the nature of existence without any warrant (empirical or otherwise) to do so. Consequently, you seek to disprove metaphysics by using your own metaphysic, and thus adhere to a self-referentially absurd worldview.

IN THE END, a person holding this view of reality has undermined the very possibility of any knowledge whatsoever, whereas Biblical Christian theism provides us with the philosophical grounding for knowledge (scientific or otherwise), logic, and the intelligibility of human experience.

A Dividing Line You Should Listen To

I think a lot of our readers follow James White's blog and at least occasionally listen to his webcast. For those who don't follow the blog or missed the most recent webcast for some reason, I highly recommend listening to it. You can read a brief and incomplete overview of the program on the page I just linked. But some of the most significant information isn't discussed until near the end of the program, and it isn't mentioned on the page I just referenced. Listen to the whole thing. It's instructive on so many points. It not only further illustrates the problems with Ergun Caner and his ministry, but also says a lot about modern American politics and those who are closely associated with our political system. When people think of political corruption, they often think of things like sex and money. What's worse is the sort of theological corruption that's so widespread today, including in conservative Republican circles. The false priorities, theological ignorance, apathy, religious pluralism, and lack of discernment, among other problems, are appalling. James White emphasized the problems with Caner and those closely associated with him, like Norman Geisler, but I would add that there are so many negative implications for other contexts as well. This incident is yet another illustration of the corruption of our society and political system in general and how unreliable even many conservative politicians and pundits are.

Hopeful universalism

Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist (and I actually read “Love Wins”)

 

On the basis of a publisher’s promotional paragraph and an advertising video in which Rob Bell questions someone’s certainty that Ghandi [sic.] is in hell, Justin Taylor sounded the web-wide alarm that Rob Bell’s forthcoming book Love Wins espouses universalism (the doctrine that everyone will eventually be saved)...I suspect I have a slight advantage over some who have expressed strong opinions on Love Wins inasmuch as I have actually read the book (I received an advanced copy).

 

Second, given Rob’s poetic/artistic/non-dogmatic style, Love Wins cannot be easily filed into pre-established theological categories (viz. “universalism” vs “eternal conscious suffering” vs. “annihilationism,” etc.)...I strongly doubt Rob would describe himself as a “Universalist.”...And this holds true even if Rob believes he has warrant to hope everyone will eventually be saved. And for this reason, I would argue that Rob cannot hold to Universalism as a doctrine: he cannot be, in the classic sense of the word, a Universalist.

 

Addendum: As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe Rob’s book as a defense of Universalism, though it expresses a hope for all to be saved. If you’re looking for defenses of Universalism as a doctrine, the best I’ve found are...Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist...

http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/

i) As a matter of fact, there is a “preestablished theological category” in which to fit Bell’s book (as Boyd himself describes it). There are varieties of universalism. And in the typology of universalism, there’s a distinction between “hopeful universalism,” “dogmatic universalism,” and “hopeful dogmatic universalism”:

Is universal salvation something that Christians can reasonably hope for or is it something they can be certain of? Ludlow and Walls point out that most Christian theologians who have been universalists had held to a form of “hopeful universalism,” whilst both Talbott and Reitan in this volume defend a form of “certain” or “dogmatic universalism,” R. Parry & C. Partridge, eds. Universal Salvation: The Current Debate (Eerdmans 2003), xviii.

 

Some Christians describe themselves as “hopeful universalists.” By this they mean that Scripture gives good grounds for real hope that all will be saved, but there is no certainty…Other Christians are dogmatic universalists. They argue that it is certain that God will save all. I agree but with a qualification. The theology outlined in this book is one that espouses a dogmatic universalism, but I must confess to not being 100% certain that it is correct. Thus I am a hopeful dogmatic universalist, a non-dogmatic dogmatic universalist, if you will G. MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist: The biblical hope that God’s love will save us all (SPCK 2008), 4.

 

I said right at the start that I am a hopeful dogmatic universalist. That is to say that, although, according to my theological system, God will save all people, I am not 100% certain that my system is correct,” ibid. 176.

I believe that Jason Pratt, of the CADRE, is another hopeful universalist. And I think Randal Rauser also identifies himself as a hopeful universalist. So this is well-established usage in universalist circles.

It’s odd that Boyd would mischaracterize universalism when, in fact, he cites a book (which he says he read) that draws that very distinction (more than once).

ii) Boyd also perpetuates the falsehood that Justin Taylor had no firsthand knowledge of the book. 

Moving along:

The stew keeps cooking on controversial mega-church pastor, Rob Bell, and his latest book, Love Wins. Today, Greg Boyd, hardly a non-controversial figure himself among evangelicals with his open theistic views, went on record saying Bell is no universalist.

 

Sometimes the best test for discovering what someone really believes is right or wrong is observing how he or she reacts when another person treats him or her in a particular way. 

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/03/denny-burk-on-entirely-missing-the-point-by-peter-lumpkins.html

Notice that Lumpkins relies on secondhand information. He continues his attack on Justin Taylor and others based, not on his own reading of Love Wins, but based on hearsay information–what Boyd says Bell says.

Lumpkins is guilty of the very thing he faults in others. So he flunks his own test.

Lumpkins is a bigot. And because he’s a bigot, he’s oblivious to his own bigotry. A bigot thinks the other guy is the bigot.

In Lumpkins’ priority system, if a man who happens to be a Calvinist says something right about a heretic, then it’s more important to attack the Calvinist and defend the heretic, than vice versa.

The Reliability Of The New Testament Text

I'm in the process of putting together more posts that will link to some representative material we've written over the years on a given topic. I've done that in the past with our posts on Jesus' resurrection, Roman Catholicism, and other subjects. I'm planning to eventually put all of these posts together into something like Steve Hays' topical index, but with more than his material.

What I want to do in this post is collect some links to our material on issues related to the textual reliability of the New Testament. As with the other link collections I've posted, this one isn't supposed to be exhaustive (of the subject or of our posts about it). My intention is to provide a good overview, hopefully including at least some of our best material on the subject, but I may overlook some posts or make some bad judgments about what should be included. There's no way to get Blogger, Google, or some other source to produce posts like this for us. As good as Google is for online searches, it often misses things. And it can't make a judgment about which posts at this blog are the best ones or are representative of what we've written on a subject. These things have to be done manually and fallibly, and they take a lot of time.

Village Physicist

I’m struck by why physicists like Robert Oerter, Taner Edis, and Vic Stenger divert so much time to attacking Christianity. Are they bored with physics? Is physics just a part-time occupation?

Or is the problem that physics has hit a wall? That there’s not much new to say about physics? A lack of fundamental progress?

Put another way, has contemporary physics became so intellectually daunting that only the most brilliant minds in the field (e.g. Ed Witten, Roger Penrose, Juan Maldacena) can hope to make a groundbreaking contribution? Hence, while second-stringers like Oerter, Edis, and Stenger are waiting for the big boys to chart the way forward, they fill the time with dilettantish diversions? 

The politics of fear

http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/6/

"The Overhauling of Straight America"

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm

"Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian"

A dozen years ago, Roger Olson wrote an article entitled “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian.”

I want to assure Roger than I don’t hate Arminians. To the contrary, I like Arminians. Indeed, there are many different ways in which I like my Arminians.

Whenever I go on a cruise with my Reformed homiez, we bring along some tender young Arminians if we need something to eat just in case we’re stranded on a desert island. I always take along a waterproof, pocket-sized cookbook with my favorite recipes, viz. Arminian au jus, Arminian au poivre, Arminian brouillé, Arminian brulée, Arminian confit, Arminian en croute, Arminian en papillote, Arminian flambé, Arminian fondue, Arminian fricasse, Arminian gratin, Arminian Lyonnaise, Arminian Niçoise, Arminian pâté, Arminian poché, Arminian potage, Arminian soufflé.