Monday, July 30, 2012
Is William Lane Craig dishonest?
For some reason, Chris Hallquist has a personal vendetta against William Lane Craig. He’s convinced himself that Craig is “dishonest.”
Actually, even if Craig were dishonest, I don’t see why an atheist should get so lathered up over the issue. Does Hallquist think dishonestly is intrinsically evil?
I myself don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a blind follower or fanboy of Craig–although I salute his contributions to the cause.
Here’s a telltale example of Craig’s alleged dishonesty:
There have been debates where Craig spoke second, such as his debates with Kagan and Tabash. But he speaks first in the vast majority of the debates he does. According to this article about how the Harris debate was arranged:
http://www.religiondispatches....
Craig basically tries to dictate the format of his debates, including his speaking first, if he can get away with it. Apparently, "if he can get away with it" ends up being most of the time, but a few times his opponent (or the organizers) will be more assertive about the format they want.
This is just plain paranoid:
i) To begin with, Hallquist makes it sound like a political campaign where one candidate has a commanding lead in the polls. This gives the leading candidate leverage in dictating the terms of the debate. If anything, the leading candidate is looking for a pretext to avoid debating his opponent. He’d like to sit on his comfortable lead. A debate is risky. Unpredictable.
It’s the challenger who desperately needs the debate to shake things up and (hopefully) change the momentum. So the challenger has to make concessions. If he doesn’t, that gives the leading candidate a face-saving excuse to opt out of the debate. If debate negotiations break down, the leading candidate has nothing to lose. And he can blame his opponent.
But that’s hardly analogous to Craig’s situation. He’s initiating debates, not evading debates. And he doesn’t have a mountain of bargaining chips.
ii) More to the point, why does Hallquist imagine that giving the first opening statement is a tactical advantage? Isn’t that backwards? Seems to me that it’s not who speaks first but who speaks last who enjoys the edge.
The debater who gives the final closing statement is in a position to shore up his earlier performance. Give a self-serving précis of his argument as well as his opponent’s argument. Because the final closing statement is unrebutted, the debater is in a position to misrepresent his opponent’s position. Make it seem weaker than it really is.
After a long debate, audience is more likely to remember the last thing they heard rather than the first thing they heard. The debater who speaks last can shape the final impressions of the debate.
The exilic sanctuary
14 And the word of the Lord came to me: 15 “Son of man, your brothers, even your brothers, your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, all of them, are those of whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, ‘Go far from the Lord; to us this land is given for a possession.’ 16 Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Though I removed them far off among the nations, and though I scattered them among the countries, yet I have been a sanctuary to them for a while in the countries where they have gone.’ (Ezk 11:14-16).
i) Dispensationalists accuse amils of “spiritualizing” the temple in Ezk 40ff. However, the basic reason amils interpret the temple figuratively is because Revelation interprets the temple figuratively when John understands the Ezekielian temple to prefigure the new Jerusalem.
So that’s not an amil interpretation of Ezk 40-48. That interpretation isn’t generated by filtering Ezk 40-48 through amil hermeneutics. The amil understanding isn’t the result of an amil interpretation; rather, the amil understanding is the result of John’s interpretation.
ii) However, what about Ezekiel on its own terms? Ezekiel “spiritualizes” the temple too. Take the above passage. The unexiled Judeans equated God’s presence with proximity to the holy land. They were left behind when their compatriots were deported. They still inhabited the holy land. They could still worship in the ruins of the Solomonic temple (e.g. Jer 41:5).
They assumed the exiles were far from God because the exiles were far from the holy land. Far from the temple precincts. Banished from the presence of God.
But Ezekiel says God was present with the deportees. God himself was their “sanctuary” for the duration of the Babylonian exile. Even though that exilic sanctuary was spiritual, it was more real than the material temple, for Solomon’s temple was just a token of God’s presence rather than the reality.
The temple in general, and the inner sanctum in particular, was just a physical emblem of God’s presence. The deportees experienced the reality of God’s presence without the physical emblem. The two were always separable in theory, and in this case the separation was patent. They had access to God without the outward medium.
Of course, that doesn’t prove the figurative interpretation of Ezk 40-48. It does, however, lay the groundwork for that understanding within the same book. For Ezekiel himself articulates the principle of a spiritual temple. So viewing Ezk 40-48 as an extended metaphor is not extraneous to Ezekiel’s outlook. Indeed, a rebuilt temple would be retrograde on Ezekiel’s own terms.
Ezk 11:16 likely alludes to Ezekiel’s theophanic visions in Babylon. The theophanic storm cloud is a dynamic (rather than static) sanctuary. A portable sanctuary. Heavenly rather than earthly. He himself experienced God’s presence in exile.
A false Euthyphro dilemma
A Quick Euthyphro Dilemma Reply to Craig's Argument Against Atheistic Significance, Meaning, and Purpose
1. Either (a) the purposes God sets for our lives are significant because God wills them, or (b) God wills them because they're significant.2. If (a), then what counts as a significant life is arbitrary.3. If (b), then what counts as a significant life is independent of God---------------4. Therefore, what counts as a significant life is either arbitrary or independent of God.
That’s a false dilemma. For instance, what makes the life of a dolphin significant isn’t interchangeable with what makes the life of a man significant. That’s because a dolphin is a different kind of creature, with a different habitat.
The respective significance of their lives isn’t simply due to God’s sheer will, but to God’s design. On the one hand, that’s not arbitrary. Rather, that’s grounded in the nature of the creature, as well as the nature of world to which the creature is preadapted. On the other hand, that’s not independent of God.
Exbrainer hasn’t made any intellectual progress since I first debated him, years ago. He’s not smart enough to be an atheist. No one is.
Does inerrancy die the death of a thousand qualifications?
I think John Piper’s definition of inerrancy as “perfection with respect to purpose” is good EXCEPT most people would not think that’s what “inerrancy” means. The vast majority of people who hear about “biblical inerrancy” THINK it means technical, precise, exact correspondence with reality with no room for estimates, rounding up or down of numbers, reliance on errant sources, etc., etc. During thirty years of teaching theology I have had the constant experience of showing students the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and conservative evangelical theologians’ qualifications (e.g., Millard Erickson’s) and having them laugh. When I asked them why they laughed they always said “That’s not ‘inerrancy’.” Exactly.
What has happened is that conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars like Piper and Erickson and others have realized, as a result of their higher educations and researches, that the Bible DOES contain what most people (including they in the past) consider “errors.” But they want to hold onto the term “inerrancy” because it is such a useful litmus test for excluding “liberals” and other undesirables from the evangelical movement. So, instead of simply discarding the term “inerrancy,” they redefine it to death. But, almost no lay person and few pastors understand that’s what’s happening. They think the leading defenders of “inerrancy” believe what THEY do. The secret is, the scholars don’t.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/further-thoughts-on-why-inerrancy-is-problematic/
This is a hackneyed attack on inerrancy. Because Olson can’t think for himself, he simply parrots the cliché-ridden objection. According to this objection, inerrancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
But that way of broaching the issue is fundamentally misconceived. It’s not like conservatives begin with a crude, ready-made definition of inerrancy, then proceed to refine it with ad hoc qualifications. For inerrancy is, itself, a theological construct, which derives from the self-witness of Scripture. We’re not taking a generic, preexisting definition, then redefining it. We’re not adding to, or subtracting from some off-the-shelf definition.
Both liberals and conservatives bring their expectations to the Bible. Both liberals and conservatives come to the Bible with mental preconceptions or qualifications. The concept of inerrancy is no more or less qualified than the concept of errancy. Both sides have prior understanding or considered opinion of what it would mean for the Bible to be true or false. Conservatives haven’t tacked on special riders.
Olson himself clearly has a preconceived notion of what the Bible ought to be like it if were completely true. And the Bible doesn’t measure up to his expectations. So he has his own set of caveats and codicils. It’s not like he begins with a pure, value-free concept of truth.
The ‘Rule of Faith’ and the New Testament Canon
David Anders #224:
I think perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in my question.
I wasn’t asking about how we identify the canon.
(For the record, however, I have glanced at Kruger.)
For the sake of argument – even if I were to grant Kruger his thesis – (‘self-attestation’) – this still does not get at my question.
The question is not, “how do we identify the canon?”
It is, rather, “How do we know that the canon is (or is not) the rule of faith?”
My understanding of the Protestant confessions leads me to the understand that
1) All articles of faith must be established by divine revelation.
2) Sola Scriptura is an article of faith.
3) Sola Scriptura means that the canon (however we come to recognize it) is the Rule of Faith.
Presumably, then, Sola Scriptura must be established by divine revelation.
My question: where does divine revelation establish that this canon of Scripture we possess (however we come to recognize it) is the Rule of Faith.
Why Miracles Aren't More Documented
Though I've given some examples of miracle accounts that are
supported by a lot of evidence, people often ask why there aren't more such
accounts. Why isn't there more documentation of miracles, especially miracles
that supposedly have occurred in our era of widespread technology, political
freedoms, and other advantages? Asking why there isn't more evidence doesn't
explain the evidence we have. Still, why isn't there more?
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The in-group
I’m going to propose a modest little argument for infant baptism. Mind you, I don’t think there’s much riding on this issue one way or the other.
The usual arguments for and against infant baptism are theological. Mine is sociological. Let’s begin with some illustrations.
When I’m born, I’m born into a community. I have an individual identity, but I also have a social or familial identity. I have a built-in set of relationships. I’m born into a family. I’m related to my parents. I’m related to my siblings, if I have any. I’m related to aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents.
By “relation” I don’t mean a blood relation, per se. After all, some of my relatives are in-laws.
Rather, there’s a sense in which I belong to that social unit. I’m a member of that nuclear family or extended family. And there’s nothing I did to achieve that status. Rather, that’s an ascribed status.
Likewise, if I’m born to rich parents, that puts me in a differential social class than if I’m born to poor parents. And I did nothing to merit or demerit that social status. It’s a role I’m born into by virtue of second parties I’m related to.
Or take nationality. I was born in America to American parents. That automatically made me an American citizen. The United States claims me. I have certain rights and responsibilities as an American, in contrast to rights and responsibilities I’d have as an Italian or Scotsman or Frenchman.
Suppose your parents belong to a church. They belong to a religious community. If you’re born to your parents, you are thereby born into their religious community. Because they belong to that religious community, and you belong to your parents (“belong” in the sense of being a family member), you belong to that community. You acquire their preexisting social attachments. Their affiliation becomes your affiliation via your affiliation to them.
Infant baptism is a public acknowledgement that you’re a member of that religious community by virtue of your relationship to your parents, and their relationship to the religious community. It carries over. (This would also be true if your parents joined a church.) You are born into whatever in-group your parents belong to.
You’re not treated as an outsider. It’s not like you just walked in off the street.
To take another illustration, when I was a young kid, the principal of the school where my father taught held a summer picnic on school grounds for the faculty. But, of course, attendance wasn’t restricted to faculty. Spouses and children of faculty members were both allowed and expected to come. They were part of the in-group. Although they weren’t employed by the school, they were treated differently than a stranger who simply walked onto the campus to crash the party. The man on the street wasn’t invited to the picnic.
By the same token, it’s possible to lose your ascriptive membership. In principle, I could renounce my American citizenship. I could apply for citizenship in another country. That would be analogous to apostasy. Or I could be convicted of treason and deported. That would be analogous to excommunication.
Ascriptive membership is different from communicant membership. That’s not transmissible. Communicant membership requires a credible profession of faith. Kinship doesn’t cut it.
A Catholic conundrum
Traditionally, Catholic apologists have tried to prooftext Catholicism from Scripture, church fathers, church councils, &c. However, that’s a double-edged sword. For Protestant apologists can cite the same sources to disprove Catholicism.
The point is not that Rome can’t find any support for some of her dogmas in the church fathers or church councils. The problem is that while these sources lend support for Rome in some respects, they undermine Rome in other respects. What they give with one hand they take with another.
As a result, Catholic apologists have to fall back on the Magisterium to sift and sort authoritative traditions from unauthoritative traditions. However, that raises the question of how Catholic apologists establish the authority of the Magisterium in the first place. You can’t cite tradition to ratify the Magisterium if the Magisterium must winnow authentic tradition from the chaff. So the appeal is viciously circular.
More recently, Bryan Cross and Michael Liccione have taken a different tack. When Protestant apologists quote Catholic sources or patristic sources against them, they say that begs the question. For that assumes you can interpret the sources apart from the Magisterium. That’s a “solo-Scriptura” methodology.
So they deny that you can directly prooftext the issue one way or the other. Rather, your prooftexting is only as good as your interpretive paradigm.
However, that maneuver comes at a cost. It means Liccione and Cross can’t directly prooftext their position either. Moreover, their tactic relocates the problem. Instead of furnishing evidence for Catholicism, they must now furnish evidence for their interpretive paradigm.
And they need evidence that’s independent of Catholic or patristic sources, for their interpretation of the sources is only as good as their interpretive paradigm. They can’t derive their paradigm from the sources if their interpretation of the sources is paradigm-dependent. So how do they establish their interpretive paradigm in the first place? How does the process ever get started?
Mapping Ezekiel
I’m going to discuss how some of Ezekiel’s mises en scène relate to each other:
Portable Sanctuary
1 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin), 3 the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal, and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.
4 As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal. 5 And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, 6 but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. 10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above. Each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. 12 And each went straight forward. Wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. 13 As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14 And the living creatures darted to and fro, like the appearance of a flash of lightning.
15 Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. 16 As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. 17 When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. 18 And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. 19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. 20 Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads. 23 And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body. 24 And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still, they let down their wings. 25 And there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings.
26 And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance. 27 And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him. 28 Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around.
Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.(Ezk 1)
12 Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great earthquake: “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from its place!” 13 It was the sound of the wings of the living creatures as they touched one another, and the sound of the wheels beside them, and the sound of a great earthquake.(Ezk 3:12-13)
1 Then I looked, and behold, on the expanse that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in appearance like a throne. 2 And he said to the man clothed in linen, “Go in among the whirling wheels underneath the cherubim. Fill your hands with burning coals from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city.”
And he went in before my eyes. 3 Now the cherubim were standing on the south side of the house, when the man went in, and a cloud filled the inner court. 4 And the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub to the threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the Lord. 5 And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks.
6 And when he commanded the man clothed in linen, “Take fire from between the whirling wheels, from between the cherubim,” he went in and stood beside a wheel. 7 And a cherub stretched out his hand from between the cherubim to the fire that was between the cherubim, and took some of it and put it into the hands of the man clothed in linen, who took it and went out. 8 The cherubim appeared to have the form of a human hand under their wings.
9 And I looked, and behold, there were four wheels beside the cherubim, one beside each cherub, and the appearance of the wheels was like sparkling beryl. 10 And as for their appearance, the four had the same likeness, as if a wheel were within a wheel. 11 When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went, but in whatever direction the front wheel faced, the others followed without turning as they went. 12 And their whole body, their rims, and their spokes, their wings, and the wheels were full of eyes all around—the wheels that the four of them had. 13 As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing “the whirling wheels.” 14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was a human face, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.
15 And the cherubim mounted up. These were the living creatures that I saw by the Chebar canal. 16 And when the cherubim went, the wheels went beside them. And when the cherubim lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the wheels did not turn from beside them. 17 When they stood still, these stood still, and when they mounted up, these mounted up with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in them.
18 Then the glory of the Lord went out from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. 19 And the cherubim lifted up their wings and mounted up from the earth before my eyes as they went out, with the wheels beside them. And they stood at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the Lord, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.
20 These were the living creatures that I saw underneath the God of Israel by the Chebar canal; and I knew that they were cherubim. 21 Each had four faces, and each four wings, and underneath their wings the likeness of human hands. 22 And as for the likeness of their faces, they were the same faces whose appearance I had seen by the Chebar canal. Each one of them went straight forward.(Ezk 10:1-22)
22 Then the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the wheels beside them, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them. 23 And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain that is on the east side of the city. 24 And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in the vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen went up from me. 25 And I told the exiles all the things that the Lord had shown me.(Ezk 11:22-25)
i) This is a multifaceted visionnary series. The theophany combines elements of a throne, a chariot, and a sanctuary. It’s often described as a portable throne, but because God is holy, his throne-room is also a sanctuary. The holiness of God sanctifies or consecrates his throne-room.
ii) Apropos (i), cherubim figure in the temple and the tabernacle. They guard the inner sanctum.
They function as sentinels. Their function is not to protect God, but to protect sinners from trespassing on holy space. Holiness is dangerous to sinners. Holiness is deadly to sinners. Restricted access to God is a safety precaution.
iii) Scholars have always found it difficult to visualize the wheels. This may be because the imagery is multivalent. It may evoke chariot wheels (cf. Ps 18:9-14. It may also allude to the wheeled laver-stands in the Temple, with cherubic decoration (1 Kgs 7:27-37).
They may also represent the moving stars. The theophanic sanctuary is a microcosm of the world, with allusions to the creation account, with sky and water. And the dynamic Spirit. Cf. B. Halpern, “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1,” From Gods to God (Mohr Seibeck 2009).
iv) The “eyes” (Ezk 1:18) could either be eyestones or stars. If the former, they evoke the firestones in Ezk 28. If the latter, they evoke Gen 1.Cf. Halpern, ad loc.
The Edenic Sanctuary
“You were the signet of perfection,full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;every precious stone was your covering,sardius, topaz, and diamond,beryl, onyx, and jasper,sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;and crafted in gold were your settingsand your engravings.On the day that you were createdthey were prepared.14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.15 You were blameless in your waysfrom the day you were created,till unrighteousness was found in you.16 In the abundance of your tradeyou were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,from the midst of the stones of fire.17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.I cast you to the ground;I exposed you before kings,to feast their eyes on you.18 By the multitude of your iniquities,in the unrighteousness of your tradeyou profaned your sanctuaries;so I brought fire out from your midst;it consumed you,and I turned you to ashes on the earthin the sight of all who saw you.(Ezk 28:11-18)
This has intertextual connections with Gen 2-3 as well as Ezk 1 & 10.
i) There’s the guardian cherub. In this case a fallen cherub.
ii) The gems and precious metals recall Gen 2:11-12.
iii) The gemstones evoke the breastplate of the high priest.
iv) The gemstones recall the sapphire throne, eyestones, and chrysolite wheels in Ezk 1.
v) The firestones may be analogous to the burning coals in Ezk 10.
vi) The holy mount evokes Mt. Zion (e.g. 11:23).
vii) The garden is an earthly sanctuary. Holy ground.
The Visionary Temple
In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me to the city. 2 In visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel, and set me down on a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south.(Ezk 40:1-2).
The inside of the nave and the vestibules of the court, 16 the thresholds and the narrow windows and the galleries all around the three of them, opposite the threshold, were paneled with wood all around, from the floor up to the windows (now the windows were covered), 17 to the space above the door, even to the inner room, and on the outside. And on all the walls all around, inside and outside, was a measured pattern. 18 It was carved of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Every cherub had two faces: 19 a human face toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around. 20 From the floor to above the door, cherubim and palm trees were carved; similarly the wall of the nave.
21 The doorposts of the nave were squared, and in front of the Holy Place was something resembling 22 an altar of wood, three cubits high, two cubits long, and two cubits broad. Its corners, its base, and its walls were of wood. He said to me, “This is the table that is before the Lord.” 23 The nave and the Holy Place had each a double door. 24 The double doors had two leaves apiece, two swinging leaves for each door. 25 And on the doors of the nave were carved cherubim and palm trees, such as were carved on the walls. And there was a canopy of wood in front of the vestibule outside.(Ezk 43:15-25).
i) The mountaintop setting recalls both Mt. Zion (11:23) and Eden (28:14,16).
ii) The decorative cherubim are 2D representations of the real 3D cherubim in Ezk 1 & 10. They symbolically guard the inner sanctum.
The New Eden
Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. 2 Then he brought me out by way of the north gate and led me around on the outside to the outer gate that faces toward the east; and behold, the water was trickling out on the south side.
3 Going on eastward with a measuring line in his hand, the man measured a thousand cubits, and then led me through the water, and it was ankle-deep. 4 Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was knee-deep. Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was waist-deep. 5 Again he measured a thousand, and it was a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen. It was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through. 6 And he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen this?”
Then he led me back to the bank of the river. 7 As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. 8 And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh. 9 And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. 10 Fishermen will stand beside the sea. From Engedi to Eneglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets. Its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. 11 But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. 12 And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.”(Ezk 47:1-12)
i) The scene is Edenic. The trees, rivers, and wildlife represent a new Eden.
ii) The torrential river also recalls the “sound of many waters” in 1:24.
iv) The river recalls the canal where Ezekiel received his inaugural vision (Ezk 1:1).
Due to certain parallels between these mises en scène, they are mutually interpretive. If, for instance, the depiction of the Edenic cherub in Ezk 28 is highly stylized, then it wouldn’t be surprising if, say, the depiction of the temple in Ezk 40ff. is quite stylized.
Orcs and hobbits
There’s a debate over the papacy at Green Baggins. The debate is going badly, for the same reason debates there always go badly. That’s because outsiders like Bryan Cross are always allowed to dictate the terms of engagement.
For instance:
Bryan Cross said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pmYou’re [sic] “textualist” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.
Notice, for instance, how Bryan rigs the burden of proof, as if the onus lay on Protestants to prove the “impossibility” of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition. But, of course, that’s backwards. It’s up to Bryan to demonstrate the reality of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.
Also notice how easy it would be to perform a reductio ad absurdam on Bryan’s argument, viz.
Joseph Smith said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pmYour “countercult” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of the angel Moroni revealing the golden tablets (magic reading glasses not included) to Joseph Smith
Blarney Stone said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pmYour “anti-fairyist” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of leprechauns on the Isle of Man hiding from investigators.
Bryan accuses Lane of begging the question. But if (arguendo) it’s question-begging for Lane to frame the issue in “solo-Scriptura” terms, then it’s equally question-begging for Bryan to frame the issue in (allegedly) Catholic terms. It’s not enough to say Protestants must justify their interpretive paradigm, and leave it at that, as if Catholics don’t share a parallel burden of proof to justify their own paradigm. If Bryan is going to appeal to the church fathers, then he needs to take the preliminary step of first explaining why his interpretive paradigm is right.
And not just a hypothetical argument for the hypothetical virtues of the Catholic paradigm, but an argument for why we should believe that’s actually the case.
Moreover, as I pointed out recently, there’s no reason to think Bryan’s “interpretive paradigm” is the Catholic paradigm. Compare it to this paradigm:
Finally, Wall says that interpretation–presumably both as exegesis and as application insofar as the two are distinguished–is subject to the rule of faith, going back to Irenaeus. However, why should any churchly summary of the gospel, an extracanonical interpretation, be the norm for subsequent interpretation?…Should not our creeds be subject to Scripture and revisable in light of our growing, or at least changing, understanding of biblical teaching?...Appeal to any creed or rule of faith needs to be conscious of its human, fallible character.
Stanley Porter & Beth Stovell, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (IVP Academic, 2012), 173.
Finally, even if, for the sake of argument, Lane was guilty of begging the question, that objection only goes so far. Bryan needs to know, for his own sake, that Catholicism is true. Deflecting Protestant objections isn’t sufficient. How does Bryan know that Catholicism is true? What’s his argument? That’s something he need to know for himself, regardless of whether Protestants are leveling fallacious objections (which I don’t concede). Why does Bryan keep running away from that question? Is it because he can’t answer that question? He can’t give a good answer? He can only swat the objection away?
His tactic is to prevent his opponent from winning. But that doesn’t make him win the argument. There’s a difference between not losing and winning. A stalemate isn’t victory.
What is Bryan’s positive case for Catholicism? What is Bryan's concrete evidence that Catholicism is true? Not hypotheticals, but actual evidence.
Bryan loves to change the subject. Instead of proving Catholicism, he tries to rebut Protestant objections to Catholicism. But that’s not the same thing.
Now Bryan might say that he can’t give direct evidence because the interpretation of evidence is paradigm-dependent. But he doesn't offer a direct argument for his interpretive paradigm, either.
To say you can’t begin with the evidence, you must begin with the interpretive paradigm, only pushes the question back a step. Okay, so suppose we begin with the paradigm. Suppose we take Bryan up on the offer. In that event he needs to make a case for his paradigm. Where’s the argument?
All Liccione ever says to justify the paradigm is that that’s necessary to close the gap between opinion and the assent of faith. But why is it necessary to close that (alleged) gap in the first place? He’s tacitly appealing to a Catholic presupposition. So it’s turtles all the way down.
A token grief
I’m appalled to see that Ben Witherington has published a book about his daughter’s death. That, of itself, doesn’t leave me appalled. Writing reaction pieces in the heat of the moment can be therapeutic for the mourner.
What’s appalling is the publication date. This was published two months after she died. And we have to make allowance for the lag time between the time he sent the MS to the publisher, and the time it came out. Admittedly, the turn around time is shorter for an ebook. Even so, I assume the book was written barely a month after his daughter died.
So this is an instant grief manual. Yet surely the impact of his daughter’s death has yet to fully sink in. A loss like that has delayed effects as well as immediate effects. You can scarcely begin to process the loss a few weeks after the event. How can he give advice to other mourners at this stage in the process? Isn’t that unbearably shallow and shortsighted? Why not wait a few years?
Surely his daughter’s death merits more sustained reflection that the movie reviews he dashes off. Should this be just another rush-job, like so much of his output?
Why the haste? Why the nonstop output? How can he just move on to the next series of projects without missing a beat?
Why maintain the frenetic pace of teaching, speaking, writing? Why not slow down? Take a break? Go on Sabbatical? Rent a cottage by the lake. Take his wife. Go for long walks in the woods. Or take a rowboat. Have quiet time for prayer. Mediation. Read devotionally. Be receptive to what God is teaching him in this experience.
Not everyone has that luxury. Lots of folks have to work long hours five or six days a week to pay the bills. But his schedule is more flexible. He’s a workaholic by choice, not necessity. It’s not unusual for career-driven men to be self-absorbed. That’s something we need to resist.
Even if Witherington was something of an absentee husband and father, given his ambitious itinerary, imagine what his wife is going through. If not for himself, can’t he take extra time out of his hectic schedule for her, during this time of desolation and devastation? I’m reminded of something I recently read: Application is the whole purpose of biblical interpretation. Short of this goal the interpretive task is incomplete and risks reducing Scripture–however high our view–to an object to be mastered rather than a voice to be heeded.
Christian piety is ultimately about what we are, not what we do. About spiritual formation. Fostering a godly character.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Misdirecting the flock
Both on his own blog as well as the aomin site, Jamin Hubner plugged recent Gareth Cockerill’s commentary on Hebrews. I find that a little strange inasmuch as Cockerill is Arminian.
I’m not suggesting that we should never read Arminian commentaries. Arminian scholars can produce fine exegesis. And it’s important to know how they interpret their prooftexts.
Nevertheless, the apostasy passages Hebrews are the Arminian locus classicus against the perseverance of the saints. What’s more, those passages are a controlling feature of Hebrews. How you interpret those passages will impact your general reading of Hebrews. So I wouldn’t recommend Cockerill’s commentary as a “great” exegetical “resource.” And you don’t have to buy a whole commentary to find out how he deals with the apostasy passages. He contributed to one of the Four Views series on that very topic.
Surely there are better available commentaries on Hebrews, such as Peter O’Brien’s 2010 commentary. Moreover, Buist Fanning, Douglas Moo, and D. A. Carson all have commentaries on Hebrews in the pipeline which ought to be preferable to Cockerill’s.
Conquest accounts
Nevertheless, there were likely only a few small battles in a few places (like Hazor). The stories of mass extermination of Canaanites that God ordered (Deuteronomy 7:1-5 and 20:10-20) do not depict brute historical events, but Israel’s culturally influenced way of making an important theological statement (see #5). If that is true, it complicates Piper’s assumption that one can point to the book of Joshua and say “God is like this.”
5. It is not at all clear that these biblical stories were even written to depict “what God did.” Recent work has made the case that the book of Joshua is not a “conquest narrative.” Rather, using conquest as a narrative setting, Joshua is a statement about what it means to be an insider or an outsider to their community. The conquest stories are symbolic narratives that point to a theological truth.
i) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the OT conquest accounts are hyperbolic. Even so, that wouldn’t make them symbolic.
For instance, suppose that Egyptian, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian court historians exaggerate the military exploits of their respective empires. But even if we make allowance for inflated claims, does that mean the Egyptians, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian empires never actually conquered anyone? Never subjugated surrounding nations?
ii) I’m sure we can expect an increasing number of monographs that “rethink” OT conquest accounts. That labor to take the sting out of the offending narratives.
But whether or not you believe in the inspiration of the OT, that’s hardly plausible. Rather, that’s a politically correct attempt to domesticate these intractable “texts of terror.” That reflects the ethical sensibilities of the modern churchmen or academics who write them. But there’s no evidence that the OT narrators share their embarrassment. Rather, that’s projecting modern scruples on ancient conquest accounts.
Imagine applying that hermeneutic to Egyptians, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, or Roman conquest accounts or royal reliefs. Is there any reason to think court historians felt moral compunction about the military exploits of they celebrating in their public art and conquest accounts?
The new Marcionites
I’m going to make some comments on this post:
Before commenting on a few specific statements, I wish to make a general observation. Increasingly, objections to Calvinism are bundled with objections to the OT. You see this with Arminians like Randal Rauser and Roger Olson. And we see this same thing with Peter Enns. In this post, his criticisms of the OT run in tandem with criticisms of Calvinism.
Yahweh is too much like the God of Calvinism to separate them in principle or practice. The family resemblance is uncanny. Increasingly, those who attack the morality of Calvinism attack the morality of the OT, and vice versa. These are parallel objections.
There is some logic to this development. But this attack on Calvinism admits that Calvinism is too Biblical for its own good. Calvinism is faulty because Scripture is faulty.
To some extent this represents a dramatic shift from traditional objections to Calvinism. Traditionally, Arminians try to argue that Calvinism is unscriptural. Now, however, they are using the opposite argument: that Calvinism is scriptural to a fault. That it’s too wedded to a false view of God we find in Scripture.
All pretense of honoring the authority of Scripture is openly and brazenly abandoned. Critics of Calvinism used to maintain the appearance of deferring to Scripture, but Scripture itself is now in the crosshairs.
They attempt to put Calvinists on the defensive for believing the Bible. How dare you believe what the Bible says about the Canaanites! What kind of person are you!
The approach is indistinguishable from militant unbelievers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
But then he would need to address squarely Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that “death to our enemies” is no longer valid.
Several problems with that appeal:
i) Jesus doesn’t share his view of the OT. Jesus ranged all over the OT to prooftext his mission.
ii) The Sermon on the Mount is telling Christians how to treat their enemies. It’s not telling us how Jesus will treat his enemies.
In that respect, Enns is ignoring what Jesus says about eschatological judgment in Matthew. Jesus, as the eschatological judge, will consign his enemies to everlasting punishment.
Far from softening the OT, that ups the ante. Executing the Canaanites pales in comparison with eternal damnation.
iii) Increasingly, the critics of Calvinism are resorting to a Marcionite dichotomy between the evil God of the OT and the good God of the NT. But that’s alien to the NT use of the OT. Alien to the viewpoint of Jesus, the apostles, and other NT writers.
It is not at all clear that these biblical stories were even written to depict “what God did.” Recent work has made the case that the book of Joshua is not a “conquest narrative.” Rather, using conquest as a narrative setting, Joshua is a statement about what it means to be an insider or an outsider to their community. The conquest stories are symbolic narratives that point to a theological truth.
Even if we accept that claim for the sake of argument, these narratives symbolically depict the character of God. A God who symbolically orders the wholesale execution of the Canaanites. Even if (ex hypothesi) that’s a symbolic illustration of God’s character, the “theological truth” which that (allegedly) symbolic narrative illustrates is just as antithetical to Enns’s kinder gentler understanding of God as a literally depiction. Increasingly, the critics of Calvinism are resorting to a Marcionite dichotomy between the evil God of the OT and the good God of the NT.
Methodological self-refutation
The major reason unbelievers say they reject Gen 1 is because Gen 1 is said to be unscientific, or contrary to science. We know from modern cosmology, geology, botany, and zoology that that’s not how it happened.
But let’s hold that thought for a moment and compare that to another consideration. For many of the same unbelievers who reject Gen 1 on scientific grounds also subscribe to methodological naturalism. Here’s a representative statement of methodological naturalism:
There are two basic principles of science that creationism violates. First, science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. This principle is sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism…Nonmaterial causes are disallowed.
When a creationist says, “God did it”, we can confidently say that he is not doing science. Scientists do not allow explanations that include supernatural or mystical powers for a very important reason. To explain something scientifically requires that we test explanations against the natural world. A common denominator for testing a scientific idea is to hold constant (“control”) at least some of the variables influencing what you are trying to explain. Testing can take many forms, and although the most familiar test is the direct experiment, there exist many research designs involving indirect experimentation, or natural or statistical control of variables.
Science’s concern for testing and control rules out supernatural causation. Supporters of the “God did it” argument hold that God is omnipotent. If there are omnipotent forces in the universe, by definition, it is impossible to hold their influences constant; one cannot “control” such powers. Lacking the possibility of control of supernatural forces, scientists forgo them in explanation. Only natural explanations are used. No one yet has invented a theometer, so we will just have to muddle along with material explanations.
For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, I think methodological naturalism is unscientific. But for the sake of argument, let’s play along with methodological naturalism.
If we take that methodology for granted, then what does it mean to say Gen 1 is unscientific? If would mean that things didn’t happen that way if you leave God out of the picture.
But this also means that if you do take God into account, then you’re in no position to say it didn’t happen that way. In fact, Eugenie Scott’s explicit justification for methodological naturalism is that If there are omnipotent forces in the universe, by definition, it is impossible to hold their influences constant; one cannot “control” such powers.
But in that event, she can’t rule out the possibility (or even probability) that Gen 1 is factual. Moreover, she can’t say Gen 1 has been falsified by the scientific evidence, for on her definition, scientific evidence can’t take divine agency into account. Therefore, it would be viciously circular for her to appeal to the scientific evidence against Gen 1 if, by definition, her method disallows supernatural causes. For in that case, she’s preemptively excluded potential counterevidence. By her own admission, allowing for the possibility of divine agency introduces uncontrollable variables into the process. But if science can’t make allowance for divine agency, then science can’t say what God would or would not have done in that situation. Indeed, on that definition, science can’t even say that divine agency is improbable in that situation. She’s disqualified science from making judgments about divine agency one way or the other. But that leaves the question open-ended.
Friday, July 27, 2012
USA!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/wrestling/sydney-2000-retrospective-gardner-vs-karelin.html
The God particle
The media has been hyping the discovery of the “God particle,” more prosaically called the Higgs boson–which doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
This is a good occasion to discuss what makes some scientific discoveries interesting and others less interesting. And that, in turn, is germane to the future of science.
Finding a new elementary particle is mighty exciting if you’re a particle physicist. But unless that’s your profession, discovering what things are made of is less thrilling than other types of findings. Some answers are more interesting because some questions are more interesting.
For instance, I think we generally find the question of how things work more interesting than what they’re made of. Likewise, we’re curious in where things came from. The origin of the universe. The origin of life. As well as the future.
This may be due, in part, to the fact that we’re timebound creatures. We don’t directly experience the distant past. So we wonder how we got here. What happened before we were here that led up to this point? Why does the world exist? Why does this world exist? Why do I exist. That’s part of why a lot of folks find history interesting. Or genealogy.
The theory of special relativity is interesting because, if true, it presents a counterintuitive view of time and space (i.e. time dilation, length contraction). And we find that intriguing because we’re timebound, spacebound creatures. Time and space condition human experience. How we perceive reality.
And they also affect what we value. Take nostalgia. The present slipping away before we want it to go.
Likewise, quantum mechanics, if true, is interesting because it presents a counterintuitive view of causality (e.g. nonlocality, action at a distance). And we find that intriguing because causality (or what we take to be causal relations) is a pervasive and fundamental feature of human experience. It’s bound up with the arrow of time, where the direction of time mirrors the direction of cause and effect. Consider those time-travel scenarios.
Moreover, on one interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are alternate timelines. Parallel worlds.
If true, that’s interesting because it’s natural to ask ourselves, if we had more than one life, what the road not taken would look like. Imagine if we could immersively explore alternate routes and see how they came out. Although quantum mechanics can’t actually put us in touch with alternate timelines, it lends reality to those imaginative speculations (assuming that’s the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is hotly contested).
Furthermore, on one interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g. Eugene Wigner), the observer can influence what he observes. Mind over matter. If true, that would be very intriguing.
But this, in turn, raises the question of whether the most interesting scientific theories have already been proposed. Is there anything currently on the docket, or in the foreseeable future, of scientific theorizing, to match the inherent interest generated by quantum mechanics and special relativity? Or are we now down to the nuts and bolts? It’s hard to gin up the same level of interest in theories or discoveries that are more mundane. In that sense, are the best days of science behind us? Has it already told us the best stories it had to offer?
Psychosomatic Miracles?
Critics of the supernatural often speculate that alleged
miraculous healings are instead naturalistic healings of a psychosomatic
nature. But many types of healing and recipients of healing are poor candidates
for that hypothesis. Craig Keener gives many examples in his book, Miracles
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)