Two views of Genesis

There are professing Christians who view Genesis as an embarrassment. An impediment to the faith. Indeed, an enemy of the faith. Genesis is intellectually disreputable. It is driving our best young minds away from the faith. Forcing conscientious men and women to make an intolerable choice between faith and reason. That’s the “scandal” of the evangelical mind.

If only we could edit out the offending parts of Genesis, that would clear the way for an intellectually respectable faith. That would free us from the constant psychological strain of having to defend the indefensible.

So they take their drills and dynamite, sledgehammers and pickaxes, and chip away at Genesis. Try to break through this onerous obstacle to Christian faith in the modern world.

But what if Genesis is a dam which God has graciously put between us and the floodwaters of nihilism. What if Genesis is all that’s holding back the floodwaters of nihilism. What if we’re living in riverside communities downstream.

Suppose these professing Christians succeed in poking holes in the dam. Succeeding in breaching the dam. What awaits them? What will they find on the other side?

Cracks emerge in the dam. The dam begins to leak. Then, all at once, the dam gives way, and a wall of water comes thundering down, washing away the towns below. A raging torrent of nihilism.

And this isn’t just hypothetical. We have live-birth abortion. Sex-selective abortion. Legal measures to euthanize minors, the elderly, disabled, mentally ill. Involuntary organ harvesting. Embryonic stem cell research.

Carl Trueman on Reading Martin Luther Well

Reading Luther Not Wisely But Well: Part One

Reading Luther Not Wisely But Well: Part Two

Unimaginable Opportunities: The Gospel in a Digital Age

Dr. Albert Mohler: The Christian Leader in the Digital Age:

Content is king. People come to your Web site because they are looking for information. Make sure they can find it, and make certain it is worth finding. Your Web presence advertises to the world who you are, what your organization is all about, and the seriousness of your commitment to that mission. The information on your site must be up to date, regularly updated, and worthy of attention. If your Internet presence looks stale, visitors will assume that your organization is stale as well…

You have a message to communicate, and there is absolutely no virtue in failing to communicate that message. Make it serve the mission of your organization and drive visitors into its Web pages. Offer good content, and visitors will come back again. Let it grow old, and they will go elsewhere. This means a loss for your organization and its mission. Never forget that…

The church is assigned the task of sharing the Gospel, taking the message of Christ to the world, making disciples of all the nations. Christians have been about this task for more than 2,000 years, and we are now witnessing a resurgence in Great Commission vision and vigor in a new generation of Gospel Christians.

Just as the Gutenberg Revolution granted the generation of the Reformation unprecedented new opportunities to communicate their message, the Digital Revolution presents today’s believers with tools, platforms, and opportunities that previous generations of Christians could not have imagined.

HT: George Dunn

The Crafting of the 4th Century Roman Church, Doctrine, and Papacy

There is no question that there were “bishops” in Rome, likely beginning in the late second or early third centuries. But these were not “bishops” as we would understand them today.

Roger Collins, in his work “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy”, New York, NY: Basic Books, a Member of the Perseus Books Group, ©2009) wrote:

Not everyone is convinced that what has been called a monarchic bishop, with unquestioned authority over all of the Christian clergy in the city, was to be found in Rome even as early as [155-166], and Fabian (236-250) has been proposed as the first bishop of Rome in the full sense. It is probably not necessary to take so extreme a view. The idea that in principle there should be a single bishop at the head of the whole Christian community of the city existed well before his time. On the other hand, even after 250 the authority of the bishop over all of the Christians in the city could not easily be enforced, as it was impossible to impose uniformity in so large a city when the Christians remained legally proscribed and danger of prosecution by the state (pg 14, emphasis added).

In fact, there were disputes – “street fighting among their followers” – for control long after the 250 date. Collins recounts, “because of the house-church system, such rival bishops could co-exist for as long as they had the backing of some of the city’s many Christian groups. But the divisions usually resulted in violent clashes between the partisans of the two claimants, and in all cases the imperial government intervened to end the bloodshed and to send one or both of the rivals into exile, as happened in 235, and would do so again in 306/7 and 308” (Collins 25-26).

After the conversion of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity in Rome, the bishops of Rome found that they had wealth and splendor, and began building monuments to themselves:

They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s. Over the next hundred years their churches advanced into the city – Pope Mark’s (336) San Marco within a stone’s throw of the Capitol, Pope Liberius’ massive basilica on the Esquiline (now Santa Maria Maggiore), Pope Damasus’ Santa Anastasia at the foot of the Palatine, Pope Julius’ foundation on the site of the present Santa Maria in Trastevere, Santa Pudenziana near the Baths of Diocletian under Pope Anastasius (399-401), Santa Sabina among the patrician villas on the Aventine under Pope Celestine (422-32).

These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…(Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners, A History of the Popes, New Haven and London, Yale Nota Bene, Yale University Press ©1997 and 2001, pgs 37-38). (Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes”, New Haven and London, Yale Nota Bene, Yale University Press ©1997 and 2001, pgs 37-38).

But the only changes weren’t architectural changes. During the fourth century, these bishops of Rome sought to put their own doctrinal marks on the church.

Since the mid third century there had been a growing assimilation of Christian and secular culture. It is already in evidence long before Constantine with the art of the Christian burial sites round the city, the catacombs. With the imperial adoption of Christianity, this process accelerated. In Damasus’ Rome, wealthy Christians gave each other gifts in which Christian symbols went alongside images of Venus, nereids and sea-monsters, and representations of pagan-style wedding-processions.

This Romanisation of the Church was not all a matter of worldiness, however. The bishops of the imperial capital had to confront the Roman character of their city and their see. They set about finding a religious dimension to that Romanitias which would have profound implications for the nature of the papacy. Pope Damasus in particular took this task to heart. He set himself to interpret Rome’s past in the light not of paganism, but of Christianity. He would Latinise the Church, and Christianise Latin. He appointed as his secretary the greatest Latin scholar of the day, the Dalmatian presbyter Jerome, and commissioned him to turn the crude dog-Latin of the Bible versions [currently] used in the church into something more urbane and polished. Jerome’s work was never completed, but the Vulgate Bible, as it came to be called, rendered the scriptures of ancient Israel and the early Church into an idiom which Romans could recognize as their own. The covenant legislation of the ancient tribes was now cast in the language of the Roman law-courts [emphasis added], and Jerome’s version of the promises to Peter used familiar Roman legal words for binding and loosing -- ligare and solver -- which underlined the legal character of the Pope’s unique claims (Duffy, 38-39).

It should be noted that this “Latinization” was one of the things that the Reformation worked to undo. It was the focus of the motto, “ad fontes” [“To the sources”].

As Alister McGrath has noted in his “Introduction to Christian Theology,” “the Vulgate translation of several major New Testament texts could not be justified.” Nevertheless, he said, “a number of medieval church practices and beliefs were based upon these texts.”

So in addition to some of the forgeries and works of fiction upon which the papacy aggrandized itself, Roman doctrines themselves were founded upon or expanded with translation errors.

The reelection in perspective

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-better-or-worse/

From bushcraft to Obamacraft

In addition to traditional survival skills we teach our kids, like CPR, foraging, splinting, the Heimlich maneuver, building a bivouac, looking both ways before you cross the street, making a fire without matches, not taking candy from strangers, here’s some other safety tips in the age of Obama and domestic drones:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/how-to-dodge-a-drone/

Slavery as the alternative to the free market

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2013/02/slavery-as-alternative-to-free-market.html

The everlasting Mosaic covenant

’m going to comment on these two posts:

http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/a-prophetic-bromide-1/

http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-prophetic-bromide-2/

One of the problems of dealing with Hays is that while he lumps me in with the general run of dispensationalists…

Henebury is always free to distance his own position from the general run of dispensationalists. However, it’s up to him to state his own exceptions. That’s not something I can anticipate.

…he will not permit me to cite his fellow covenant theologians against him; especially when they admit to reinterpreting the OT with the NT, or to spiritualizing the text.

Quoting covenant theologians against me is a diversionary tactic. Henebury is debating me, not Beale or Robertson or Poythress or Riddlebarger. Quoting covenant theologians who disagree with me does nothing disprove my own position. It’s not as if dispensationalists march in lockstep.

(Num 25:10 -13) There is no need to go into minute exegesis of this passage to see that God freely enters into an eternal covenant with Phinehas and his descendents – who happen to include Zadokites!  Psalm 106:30-31 recounts…If this is true; that is, if God meant what He said in the covenant (and covenants have to mean what they say), then whether or not we can figure out the whys and wherefores, there has to be a Levitical priesthood and temple forever in fulfillment of this covenant.  This is stressed further by Jeremiah in Jer. 33: (Jer 33:14-18).

There are several problems with this appeal:

i) Henebury constantly falls back on his little formula: “if God meant what He said.”

I’m demonstrated that that formula is ambiguous at best and false at worse. It is unethical for Henebury to ignore counterarguments.

ii) Olam has a range of meanings. It doesn’t only mean “forever.”

iii) The Pentateuch routinely describes the Mosaic covenant as a series of “everlasting statutes.” Here are some examples:

And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever (Exod 12:17).

You shall observe this rite [the Passover] as a statute for you and for your sons forever (Exod 12:24).

Then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever (Exod 21:6).

And they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or when they come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guilt and die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring after him (Exod 28:43).

They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout their generations. (Exod 30:21).

16 And the priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering with a pleasing aroma. All fat is the Lord's. 17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood (Lev 3:16-17).

17 It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my food offerings. It is a thing most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. 18 Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as decreed forever throughout your generations, from the Lord's food offerings. Whatever touches them shall become holy (Lev 6:17-18).

20 This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. 21 It shall be made with oil on a griddle. You shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a grain offering, and offer it for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 22 The priest from among Aaron's sons, who is anointed to succeed him, shall offer it to the Lord as decreed forever (Lev 6:20-22).

Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations (Lev 10:9).

The thigh that is contributed and the breast that is waved they shall bring with the food offerings of the fat pieces to wave for a wave offering before the Lord, and it shall be yours and your sons' with you as a due forever, as the Lord has commanded (Lev 10:15).

And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (Lev 16:29).

And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins (Lev 16:34).

And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings (Lev 23:14).

And it shall be a statute forever for them. The one who sprinkles the water for impurity shall wash his clothes, and the one who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until evening (Num 19:21).

That’s just a sample. If we think olam means these statutes are absolutely everlasting, then there’s no room for the new covenant to succeed and supersede the old covenant.

Notice the role of the Branch (i.e. Christ).  He “executes” or “does” righteousness on the land (eretz).  This agrees with Isaiah 2:2-4 (set “in the last days”).  Micah is very similar (Mic. 4:1-7, where we are told that God “will reign over [the Remnant] in Mount Zion from now on [the last days – v.1] and forever.”).

And how does that mesh with Henebury’s belief in a thousand-year reign? The dispensational millennium is not “forever.”

The righteous reign of Messiah is seen in statements like Isa. 26:9; 51:3-5; 62:1-5.  The paradisaical conditions described in Isa. 62:1-5 involve the whole creation, as Hosea 2:16f. and  Isaiah 11:6-8 make perfectly clear (Cf. Rom. 8:18-23).

Which is a reason to assign new creation statements, not to the millennium, which is a temporary phase that’s part of the fallen, old world order, but to the final state.

So in Ezekiel 37:25-28 we read of God setting up His sanctuary under these fulfillment conditions…Please do not miss the heavy covenantal emphasis of that prophecy.  The sanctuary is the temple.

Actually, that passage sabotages Henebury’s argument:

i) In 37:27-28, Ezekiel uses two terms that antedate the temple. Both terms go back to the portable shrine in the wilderness. Miskan (“tent,” “tabernacle”) generally denotes the tabernacle proper whereas miqdas (“sanctuary”) generally denotes the larger tabernacle complex. Cf. NIDOTTE 2:1078-86; 1130-33. Although miqdas can denote the temple in later OT usage, the term is not specific to the temple, while miskan is specific to the tabernacle.

Therefore, Ezekiel’s terminology doesn’t single out a temple. The fact that Ezekiel uses fluid, inconsistent terminology underscores the symbolic nature of his designations.

Did God make an everlasting covenant of peace with the returnees?

Why does Henebury assume that God didn’t make an everlasting covenant of peace with the returnees? Does he think that’s because the returnees didn’t enjoy the sort of peace envisioned by the “covenant of peace”?

If so, that’s confused. The fact that the original generation with whom a covenant was made didn’t participate in all the benefits of the covenant doesn’t mean God never made a covenant with that generation. Covenants are diachronic and intergenerational. Although a covenant may take its inception with a particular individual or generation, later generations may be the actual beneficiaries. The Abrahamic covenant is a paradigmatic example.

By the same token, God preserves a remnant in every generation. That’s the thread of continuity. 

There is life in God's word

Also, make sure not to miss a recent interview with Keener on his book Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

What is macroevolution?

"A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution."

Update: Here is a follow-up post.

The papacy is 1600 years old, not 2000 years old

In news accounts concerning the upcoming retirement of Pope Benedict XVI and a new papal conclave, one way to check to see if the particular news outlet you are watching had actually checked its facts is if it maintains that the papacy is a 2000 year old institution.

In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of scholarship on the topic – both Roman Catholic and Protestant – affirm that “the papacy” was a late development in the history of the church.

While it is almost universally acknowledged that Peter was an important Apostle, a friend of Jesus of Nazareth and an eyewitness to his life, death, and resurrection, it cannot be said that he was “bishop of Rome” in any meaningful sense, nor can it be said that he had “successors”.

In fact, the Roman Catholic writer Klaus Schatz, in his work “Papal Primacy, From its Origins to the Present”, (the Order of St. Benedict, Inc, Collegeville, MN: A Michael Glazier Book published by The Liturgical Press, 1996), makes the following statement:

It is clear that the Roman primacy was not a given from the outset; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century (pg 36).

How do we account, then, for the notion that “the papacy extends all the way back to Peter? One key reason given may be termed “pious romance”. As Eamon Duffy says, in his work, “Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes,” (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001), though tradition is fairly certain that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero, nothing else is known, and remaining details, often supplied in the second and third centuries, were “pious romance” – works of fiction that were created to fill in some missing details:

These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, pg 2.)

Yet another writer, Daniel William O’Connor “Peter in Rome: the literary, liturgical, and archeological evidence”, (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1969), describes in this exhaustively detailed work, that the early church was so eager for details that within one hundred years after the deaths of these Apostles, it created the full accounts which are found in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, Paul, and other Apostles.

Dark nights and days

Tom Schreiner has several fine posts on Christians and suffering as well as related matters over on Credo.

The historicity of Acts

http://www.craigkeener.com/the-historicity-of-the-book-of-acts

Reigning with Christ

In the NT, Revelation 20 is also metaphorical: Satan is bound and imprisoned but is free to pursue Christians; beheaded martyrs who are resurrected are in actual fact sinners becoming Christians; Christ’s thousand year reign is not a thousand years but is the Church age.

http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-prophetic-bromide-2/

 

I’m going to treat this objection separately: 

i) To begin with, his objection is just plain lazy. Amils like Beale and Poythress correlate 20:4-5 with the intermediate state rather than regeneration. Moreover, that interpretation goes back at least as far as Warfield. 

Furthermore, there are exegetically serious defenses of the traditional New Birth interpretation. Cf. Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (Mohr Siebeck 2004), 556-57; 567-71. 

ii) One problem I have with dispensational hermeneutics is the ad hoc way they oscillate between literal and figurative interpretations. Take Rev 20:1-10. They pick it apart, arbitrarily reassigning some statements to the literal column and other statements to the figurative column. They think Satan is literally prevented from deceiving the nations. They think the 1000 years is literal. They think the sequence is literally chronological. 

However, they don’t think Satan is a literal dragon. They don’t think Satan is literally bound with a metal chain, or literally confined to the Netherworld. They take the timeframe literally, but reject the spatial framework. 

They don’t treat this scene or pericope as unified depiction. They don’t offer a consistent, holistic interpretation. 

Instead, they operate with preconceived rules of thumb like “interpret literally whenever possible” or “interpret literally unless there’s an editorial aside.” Instead of taking the passage as a whole, the way John put it together for the reader, they deconstruct it. They don’t immerse themselves in the pictorial world of Revelation. They don’t see it from within. 

BTW, here’s a commentary that gives a good overview of Revelation as a coherent, self-contained narrative: 

James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary (Baker 2009). 

I don’t agree with everything he says, but it’s a very good way of framing our interpretive approach to Revelation. 

iii) It should be unnecessary to point out that numerology is a significant feature of Revelation. 

iv) Apropos (iii), why did John seize on the number 1000? Why that figure? Why not 500 or 5000? One commentator has a helpful suggestion:

The sojourn in paradise of which Isa 65:22 announces the Messianic return is reputed to have lasted a little less than a thousand years. God had in fact warned Adam that he would die the day he ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17). It so happens that a day is like a thousand years for the Lord (Ps 90:4) and, in fact, Adam died at 930 years of age (Gen 5:5), thus before the end of the “day” of paradise.

To state that the Messianic kingdom would last a thousand years is to say, in symbolic language, that it restores the conditions of life in paradise that were interrupted by the fall. And such is, in fact, the work of Christ in the book of Revelation: his coming brings about the end of the power of the serpent of old (12:9) who can no longer seduce the nations as he did the first man (12:9; 20:3). That is why the fruit of the tree of life is offered to those who, with Christ, have overcome Satan (2:7; 22:14,19). Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 558.

To elaborate on Prigent’s observation, although some of the fallen prediluvians lived into their 900s, every one of them died short of the 1000 year mark. That’s the cutoff, the outer limit, for life after the fall. 

Conversely, a millennial lifespan crosses the threshold. It signifies reclamation of the prelapsarian status quo ante. At the same time, this still leaves room for the final state. Paradise restored isn’t paradise secured. We haven’t quite reached the consummation in the Revelation narrative. 

What about Henebury’s complaint that according to amillennialism, “Satan is bound and imprisoned but is free to pursue Christians”? Here Prigent has another apt observation:

It remains for us to understand the symbolism that explains why the author had recourse to the figure of one thousand to describe the present time. This is, in my opinion, because he defines communion with Christ as the restoration of the fall.

Hippolytus responded by a series of arguments that can be summarized, without doing them injustice, as one single objection: the assertion of fulfillment is not true because we observe today that Satan is not in bounds! Without entering into a detailed discussion, I would like to point out the weakness of this line of reasoning:

1. Although an assertion many seem unbelievable to us, that does not mean ipso facto that the author of the book of Revelation made the same judgment!
2. This is all the more true insofar as the book of Revelation presents a revelation of the present time with the intention of making us understand the true meaning that lies beyond appearances! Ibid. 553-54.

Let’s elaborate on both points: 

i) It’s tempting for a modern reader (although he needn’t be modern) to subconsciously judge Rev 20:1-3 by what he takes to be obvious, and equate his impression with the viewpoint of the author. But much of what we take to be evident or self-evident can actually be quite provincial–a reflexive impression conditioned by our particular time and place. We need to put ourselves in the situation of John, and ask ourselves if he saw the world the same way we do, rather than assuming that must be the case. Perhaps, at the time John wrote, around the latter half of the 1C, it may not have been absurd, from his perspective, to say that Satan was already bound. 

ii) Which brings us to the next point: Revelation alternates between what’s happening on earth, and what’s happening behind-the scenes. Christians here below seem losing the battle. Evil forces seem to have the upper hand. Yet John peels back the veil. That earthbound viewpoint is juxtaposed against scenes of indivisible warfare, where losers in this world are victors in the next, while victors in this world are losers in the next. Appearances notwithstanding, Christians are winning the war, even if we seem to be losing the battle. 

It’s like a poor man who has a lottery ticket in his pocket with the winning number. The winner may not have been announced. Or he may not have heard who the winner was. But he still holds the winning ticket. 

Revelation plays on a deliberate tension between appearance and reality. And that’s a test of faith. To close our eyes to mere appearances, to superficial evidence, and open the eyes of faith to the saints above and the unseen future, where the enemy never had a chance. Where the enemy was doomed to fail in the long run. As Prigent also observes, on Rev 1:3:

We shall begin by taking note of the notion of necessity (what must happen), which we have already encountered in Dan 2:28: “There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and who has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what must happen at the end of time”
This is an important doctrine for apocalyptic writers, both Jewish and Christian: God has conceived a plan from all eternity, and the most minute details of it must be accomplished. Ibid. 107.

What if Satan is actually bound, even if it looks to all the world like he is on the loose? And what if that’s because we’re staring in the wrong direction? What if we’ve unwittingly accepted Satan’s interpretation of events? Looking wherever he points? 

At ground level, seen at eyelevel, it may seem as though Satan is in control. But appearances are deceptive. Even Satan is deceived! Satan is a self-deceived deceiver. Despite appearances to the contrary, his victories are pyrrhic. In fact, his victories are a trap. Like at army that penetrates so far into enemy territory that its supply lines are easily cut. An invading force that finds itself surrounded by the enemy, with no escape. Unable to retrace its steps, to fight its way back. On a narrow trail, at the bottom of a canyon. Once the entrance and exit are blocked, rocks and arrows rain down.

Epiphany – Five Reflections from a Life Time

http://paulbarnett.info/2013/01/epiphany-five-reflections-from-a-life-time/

Behold, I am coming soon

Let’s begin by quoting Paul Henebury’s latest response to me:

Notice first that the vision is of the real temple in Jerusalem (11:1, 9, 11). Ezekiel’s vision is of the actual city and temple. Therefore visions can be of literal things and not pictorial emblems as per Steve’s assertion.

His assertion of vision = symbol has been shown to be false in the matter under discussion, but he asserts it as a fait accomplii nonetheless.

The “genre of visionary revelation” depends on who you read. I have shown that visions can be of literal things – from the text. Again, compare Ezek. 8:3 with 40:2. The “visions of God” in chs.8-11 are of literal structures and happenings in Jerusalem. He has not shown they are always metaphorical symbols of other things.

Moreover, just because a vision pictures something does not automatically make that thing non-literal like Steve wants. 

Unfortunately, this exemplifies, once more, Henebury’s inability to understand or accurately represent what his opponent said. Did I ever say visions can’t be literal? No.
In fact, in the post Henebury is supposedly responding to, I said:

Notice Henebury’s false dichotomy: as if a description can’t use picture language. Why is Henebury unable to comprehend basic concepts?

For instance, John Ruskin was famous for his florid, pictorial descriptions of Venice, the Alps, &c.

Well, Venice is real. The Alps are real.

To quote something I said elsewhere:

Visionary revelation also subdivides into theorematic revelation, which is representational–and allegorical revelation, which is symbolic. Allegorical visions are inherently ambiguous. That’s why, in Scripture, visionary revelation (especially allegorical dreams and visions) are frequently accompanied by propositional revelation. Inspired interpretation to explain the inspired dream or vision.

The meaning of an allegorical dream may also be clarified by its realization. Suddenly you see how it all falls into place. But, of course, that’s hindsight rather than foresight.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-charismata.html 

Given the fact that visions can either be figurative or literal, there’s no standing presumption that visions are literal. Literality is not the default assumption when we come to Biblical dreams and visions. There is no default assumption one way or the other. You have to look for textual and contextual clues.

Furthermore, my distinction was more complex. I distinguished between literal events and literal depictions. I also distinguished between word-pictures and abstract propositions.
Although the debate between amils and dispensationalists is substantively eschatological, the proximate debate is methodologically hermeneutical. A different hermeneutic may yield a different eschatology.

Henebury’s dispensational hermeneutic prioritizes the “plain-sense” or “face-value” meaning of Scripture. He’s also enamored with the slogan that Scripture “means what it says and says what it means.”

Okay, let’s apply his dispensational hermeneutic to a test case. And let’s compare that to my own hermeneutic:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (Rev 1:1-3).
And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.

12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Rev 22:7,12,17,20).

i) Let’s measure this by Henebury’s yardstick. What’s the plain sense of “soon” or “shortly”? What’s the face-value meaning of “near” or “at hand”?

How soon is soon? Admittedly, that’s a bit vague. Still, how many centuries must elapse before “soon” is “not so soon,” or even “late”?

This promise was uttered in the 1C AD. Here we are in the 21C AD. Does 2000 years and counting still count as “soon”?

By Henebury’s yardstick, at what point does this because a failed prophecy, which is euphemistic for a false prophecy?

Put another way, given Henebury’s slogan that it “means what it says and says what it means,” shouldn’t he be a preterist rather than a futurist? Doesn’t dispensational hermeneutics yield preterist eschatology when applied to time-markers like “I am coming soon,” and “the time is near”?

ii) Let’s consider an alternate approach, exploiting my own distinctions. John says he is bearing witness to what he saw. And what he saw was the revelation Jesus gave to him. A visionary revelation. That’s why he “saw” it.

Given that explicit, introductory framework, what if we index the time-markers to the vision? John saw Jesus coming soon in the vision. The time is near in the vision.

John saw a series of pictorial scenes which occur in rapid succession. He sees world history unfold in a vision. Like watching a movie inside your head. Within that imagistic narrative, past, present, and future elapse in fast forward. The rate of time’s passage within the vision is breathtaking.
Put yourself in John’s position. He saw it all happen in less than a day. Suppose he was in a trance for a few hours. Even in ordinary dreams, time seems to pass much faster.

On this interpretation, it doesn’t refer to how soon Jesus is coming back in real time. It’s not a calendar date. The accelerated pace has reference to the vision.

iii) Perhaps, though, someone might object we should feel cheated by that interpretation. Yes, it presents an edifying motion picture concerning the imminent return of Christ, but that isn’t synchronized with our own time and place. It doesn’t correspond to our immediate situation. It doesn’t happen where I happen to be in world history. Although Jesus may be coming soon in the vision, we may have to wait for an awful long time in real time. Indeed, generations of faithful Christians have already died, longing for his belated arrival.

To that complaint I’d say several things:

iv) As a matter of fact, generations of Christians have died before the return of Christ. You can’t blame that on the interpretation. The interpretation isn’t the cause. Premillennialism is in the same boat as amillennialism on that score.

v) Who’s being cheated? You’d have far more reason to feel cheated if Jesus had come back in the lifetime of the original audience. For that would slam the door on you and me. If Jesus came back in the time of John’s original readers, that would be too soon for my benefit.

The modern reader would be in no position to read this if Parousia had come and gone before he was born. For in that event, he wouldn’t be born. Because we are here, we may be impatient. In a big hurry for the payoff. It’s taking too long. But if it came too soon, we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Soon is relative to where you are in world history.

Although our own generation would be better off if Jesus came now, former generations could say the same thing. The longer it takes, the better that will be for future generations. For heavenbound Christians, born to die in a fallen world.

vi) Moreover, even if Jesus isn’t coming back in my lifetime, it’s encouraging for me to enjoy a preview of how the story ends. To foresee the winners and the losers. Life can be a terrible grind. We need that prospect to hope for and live for. I’m a part of how the story ends. I have a vested interest in the ending–which marks a new and better beginning.

vii) Revelation combines a futuristic eschatology with a realized eschatology. “Prophecy teachers” focus on the endtime events. But Revelation also contains visions of the saints in glory. Those who’ve gone ahead of us. Not only does the book show Jesus returning to be with us, but it also shows us going to be with Jesus–whichever comes first.

What do you believe?

This is a sequel to my previous post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/02/van-tilian-old-calendarists.html

Let’s begin with some of Nate Shannon’s statements:

On a larger scale, there are the problems of freedom and election and of providence and evil. All of these are thought to be at least apparently paradoxical. And the reason for this perception, and for the tremendous efforts it evokes toward resolution, is that it is assumed that notions of logical relations and of logical necessity operate univocally; it is assumed that they apply equally to man and to God. It is assumed that the laws of logic, as we articulate them and have come to understand them, obtain identically or are equally true in all possible worlds, even in eternity past, before creation.

In sum, the irreducible ontological distinction between Creator and creature, and precisely this arch-ec [archetypal-ectypal] or original-analogue order, give us revelationally grounded, analogical theological predication. We have true knowledge, so we reject equivocism; but because of the 'ontological distance' between the Creator and the creature, our knowledge is ever partial; so we reject univocism.

I take Shannon to be proposing the following principle: all true statements about God are only analogically true, not univocally true.

Let’s consider the real-world implications of that principle. Suppose a seminary graduate–let’s call him Nate–applies for ordination in the OPC or PCA. The Presbytery questions him on his understanding and affirmation of the Westminster Confession. For instance, they question him about these theological statements:

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

Now, I myself think I understand what those statements assert. I think I understand what the words mean. And I think I understand what the Westminster Divines intended to convey.

But what about Nate? Nate has to add caveats to every one of those theological statements. Nate can’t affirm, simpliciter, that God unchangeably foreordains everything that comes to pass. Nate can’t affirm, simpliciter, that God predestined the fate of the elect or foreordained the fate of the reprobate. Nate can’t affirm, simpliciter, that God unconditionally chose the elect. Nate can’t affirm, simpliciter, that the number of the elect is fixed from all eternity.

In fact, strictly speaking, Nate denies every one of those theological statements. Nate can only assent to those statements in a qualified sense. According to Nate, God only chose the elect in an analogical sense. God only predestines every event in an analogical sense. And so on.

Same thing with other theological statements in the Confession.

1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

Nate can’t affirm meticulous providence, simpliciter. God only upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least in an analogical sense.

Or take these statements:

1. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

God will only judge the world in an analogical sense.

2. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

God will only bless the righteous with everlasting joy in an analogical sense. God will only consign the damned to everlasting punishment in an analogical sense.

Now, I don’t object to theological analogies, per se. The Bible contains many theological analogies.

However, it’s not enough to profess that a theological statement is analogically true. For unless you can explicate in what sense the statement is true, unless you can tell us what the statement asserts to be the case, or denies to be the case, unless you can tell us what would be consistent with the statement, or what would be inconsistent with the statement, then your profession is vacuous. 

Absent that, I have no idea what Nate actually believes or disbelieves. Indeed, absent that, Nate has no idea what he actually believes or disbelieves. Otherwise, what distinguishes Nate from a heretic or unbeliever? 

In what respect is the claim analogous to reality? In what respect is the claim disanalogous to reality? What falls within the scope of the analogy? What falls outside the scope of the analogy? 

For instance, when the Confession says the number of the elect cannot be augmented or diminished, according to Nate, that statement–a statement about divine action–isn’t strictly true. At best, that statement approximates reality. The real situation is merely similar to the claim. By the same token, the real situation is in some unspecified respect dissimilar to the claim. No theological statement ever coincides with the situation it describes.  At most, the two overlap in some indefinable way.

Retraction watch

Retraction Watch: because it's easier said than unsaid.

The Nonexistent Early Papacy: Mainstream Versions

An Open Letter to Triablogue Readers:

Over the next several weeks, as Pope Benedict retires (or “abdicates”), and as the Roman Catholic Church holds a conclave to select a new pope, the media will treat us to stories from Roman Catholic sources about the “ancient” nature of their church. But historical scholarship of the last century has greatly put a damper on those claims, in our understanding of the evolution of the office of bishop, then in terms of the evolution of the office of the bishop of Rome and later the papacy.

I’ve written a great deal about “the nonexistent early papacy”. Most of my work has been written for audiences at Triablogue and Beggars All, which (as I understand them) largely consist of pastors, seminarians, and people who are “theologically aware” and even “theologically sophisticated”.

So over the next couple of weeks, my hope is to re-package some of the work that I’ve done, in a format that will be easily digestible by both the secular media (and “religion editors” especially) and also by the reading public at large. My hope is to provide some key insights about what we know about this ancient world, to a broader popular audience.

To that end, I’d like to enlist your help. At the bottom of each Triablogue post, you will see information such as the following:

I’ve created a “Label” through Blogger, “2013 Papal Conclave”; clicking on this label will bring up all the blog posts with this label.

Please “share” these blog posts. Blogger makes a number of small icons available that you can use to “share” these in various ways – through email, re-blogging, and through social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. Also, while I understand “reddit” is not a favorite source for some of you, I’ll be writing these blog posts so that any of them can be shared in the “World News” category. (The “Christianity” category on reddit is rather small and insular, or at least it was last time I looked at it.)

I’m also going to create News Releases, or Media Releases” based on these blog posts, which I hope to post through a variety of outlets (including, sending them to editorial staffs of several major news outlets).

If you can help in any of these efforts, your help will be most appreciated.

Thank you,
John Bugay

A real dark emptiness

[David Foster] Wallace explains that he tried to join the Catholic church twice, once in the mid-80s and again in the early-90s. "I've gone through RCIA [Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults] a couple of times, but I always flunk the period of inquiry," he says. "They don't really want inquiries. They really just want you to learn responses." He sounds angry. "I'm a failure -- I couldn't get in.

"My parents are atheists of the 60s brand. You know, religion for them equals central suppression from authority. But their parents -- so my grandparents -- were very, very religious. My grandmother was basically raised in a convent. . . . I think religion kind of skips a generation. Most of my best friends are religious in a way that's cool, where you don't even know it for several years. They're not the type to show up at your door with a pamphlet under their arms.

"You know, I enjoy church and I enjoy being part of a larger thing. I think it's just not in my destiny to be part of an institutional religion, because it's not in my nature to take certain things on faith."

He peers once again at the photographer's dinner. "Could I just have one shrimp?" he asks.

Leaning across the table, he adds softly, "The area around here is dominated by charismatic Protestants. They get very upset with debate and argument, which I really sort of like. With atheists it's fun to say, 'If you presume that religion has no force, not just literal force but sort of moral or metaphorical force -- that none of the point of being here resides in religious stuff -- then what is the point of being here?'

"America is one big experiment in what happens when you're a wealthy, privileged culture that's pretty much lost religion or spirituality as a real informing presence. It's still a verbal presence -- it's part of the etiquette that our leaders use, but it's not inside us anymore, which in one way makes us very liberal and moderate and we're not fanatics and we don't tend to go around blowing things up. But on the other hand, it's very difficult to think that the point of life is to double your salary so that you can go to the mall more often. Even when you're making fun and sneering at it, there's a real dark emptiness about it."

(Source)