The parables of Jesus

i) One of the generally neglected lines of evidence for the historical Jesus are the parables of Jesus. A partial exception is Keener's treatment in The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. These are mostly clustered in the Synoptic Gospels, although you have two parables (the true vine, the good shepherd), as well as many implicit parabolic metaphors, in the Fourth Gospel.

The parables are a central and distinctive feature of Jesus' teaching. Not only do they figure in his teaching, but many of his actions have a parabolic significance. Sometimes the two are tied together. He will tell a parable to illustrate an action. Or his action will be symbolic. It would be very difficult to extract the parables from the historical Jesus generally.

If, however, you deny the historicity of Jesus, then you have to account for the parables. Who wrote them? If Matthew and Luke simply got their parabolic material from Mark, it would be easier to attribute them to a single source. But Matthew and Mark have unique parables. 

So an unbeliever must hypothesize an anonymous literary genius or geniuses who composed these parables, and somehow got the entire Christian community to incorporate them into the Gospels. 

ii) I'd like to make one additional point: some parables indicate that Jesus could return at any moment, while other parables indicate signs which will precede his return. That's a tension that commentators struggle with. And it's cited as evidence that the Gospels are fallible. 

Problem is, the prima facie tension is so obvious that it could hardly be unwitting. That tension would be discernible from the get-go. 

To say that reflects a contradiction is naive, for the contrast is clearly intentional. It's something that Jesus puts out there and leaves unresolved–to keep listeners off balance. Be watchful, but not presumptuous! It strikes a balance between complacency and anxiety. A little uncertainty is a good thing; too much uncertainty is a bad thing. 

This, in turn, figures in what we should make of Christ's apparent prediction that the world would end soon. That's just one side of his eschatological teaching. That needs to be counterbalanced by the other side. 

If you take his teaching as a whole into account, we are kept in suspense precisely because we don't know how or when this tension will resolve itself. Kinda like a Whodunit. The novelist (or screenwriter) includes clues, not only to help the reader (or viewer) isolate the culprit, but to throw him off the scent. Early in the story, the novelist will feed the reader clues that lead the read to suspect the wrong character. To prematurely solve the mystery.

Then, as the plot progresses, that character is rules out, and attention turns to another person of interest. By process of elimination, the mystery is finally solved. And it may be a plot twist. A surprise ending. To some extent, Jesus employs the technique of a mystery fiction writer.

"We need a third party!"

There are voters who hanker for a third party. I'll make three brief observations:

i) We already have a third party. Indeed, we have a plethora of third parties, viz. Green Party, Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Objectivist Party, SPUSA, &c.

ii) A basic problem with the idea of a third party is that that's all it is: an idea. An abstract ideal of what some voters would like a party to be. A party purified of compromise. A party whose platform and candidates share their particular views. A voting block composed of all and only those who share the same outlook and objectives.

a) One difficulty is whether there enough like-minded voters to make that a viable, national party.

b) Another difficulty is that we lack the control over human behavior to make all like-minded voters join one ideologically pure party. We can't create that party by fiat. We can't decree how people will associate politically. 

iii) Another basic problem is that third parties are apt to be most cohesive when they have the least power. When it's just theoretical. In that situation, it's easier for them to paper over ideological factions within their own party. The stakes are so low. 

But if a third party suddenly had the prospect of wielding real political power, the faultlines would become active. Suddenly, they'd have a chance to…you know…do something. So then it would become a question of, Okay, what should we do with our newfound power?

Consider the libertarian party. By definition, libertarians are united by some things. However, on social issues, they range along a spectrum, with secular libertarians at one end and Christian conservatives at the other end. Some people (especially young men) are libertarians precisely because they want to be let alone. "Get off my back!"

If the libertarian party become a viable national party, divisions between the secular right and social conservatives would surface with a vengeance. Both sides might agree on freedom to opt out of the homosexual agenda. But on bioethics, there'd be a fundamental conflict in terms of what the state should permit or prohibit. 

And that's just one example. 

All the prophets have spoken: a rejoinder to Feser

https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/07/29/all-that-the-prophets-have-spoken-a-rejoinder-to-feser-pt-2/

Debating Mormonism

Over at patheos, there's an ongoing debate between BYU historian William Hamblin and church historian Philip Jenkins. I've only read one of Jenkins' posts. Jenkins makes some good points. 

i) Problem is, Jenkins is resorting arguments which, without further qualification, could be turned back on the Bible. Christian apologists should avoid using arguments to debunk the Mormon "scriptures" which could be used to debunk the Bible. Likewise, they should avoid backing themselves into a corner where they appear to indulge in special pleading. They need to anticipate objections, get ahead of potential objections, and fine-tune their arguments in a way that avoids invidious comparisons. 

ii) The Humean criterion that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence is hopelessly ambiguous and ill-conceived.

iii) Where should we assign the burden of proof? Does the onus lie on the Christian apologist to disprove the Mormon "scriptures"? Of does it lie on the Mormon to prove his "scriptures." 

Is there a standing presumption that Joseph Smith was a genuine prophet, which a Christian apologist must overcome? Surely not. What reason is there to take him seriously in the first place? 

iv) Apropos (iii), according to Joseph Smith:

 9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. 

 10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? 

 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h?lang=eng

That invidious contrast was easier to make at the time, before the Mormonism began to develop its own track record. But consider all the factions: the LDS v. the RLDS. The breakaway polygamist sects. Some BYU professors v. the Mormon hierarchy. Is Harry Reid a paragon of virtue? What about Mormon serial killers like Glenn Helzer, Ted Bundy, and Arthur Gary Bishop?

v) Apropos (iv), this isn't just a debate between Mormons and outsiders. You have in-house debates. For instance:

It has been suggested by some, even among members of the Church, that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century book, either written by Joseph Smith or received through revelation, and that it has no basis in any real, ancient, historical events. Some who hold this point of view hasten to add that though the book is not historical, it is nonetheless “the word of God,” “inspired,” and/or “true.”[1] This appears to mean that it qualifies as such while the events that it describes never took place. A variation on the suggestion is that it comes from God or is otherwise “true” but that it does not matter if the events that are described in it ever happened.[2] 

Using the parables-are-true-but-not-historical model, friendly critics of the Book of Mormon’s historicity argue that it does not matter whether the events and individuals in the Book of Mormon are historical, because the aims of the book are achieved independently of its historicity. In other words, like parables or other good works of literature, the Book of Mormon can teach its true principles even if the events in it never happened.[8] Thus it can still be the word of God.[9] 

[1] According to Anthony A. Hutchinson, “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should confess in faith that the Book of Mormon is the word of God but also abandon claims that it is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. We should accept that it is a work of scripture inspired by God . . . but one that has as its human author Joseph Smith, Jr.” “The Word of God is Enough: The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth-Century Scripture,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 1. A similar notion that is even more intellectually inconsistent is found in Blake T. Ostler, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 1 (spring 1987), 66–123. 

[2] According to Hutchinson, “Ultimately whether the Book of Mormon is ancient really does not matter.” Hutchinson, 16. According to Mark D. Thomas, “In the final analysis the book’s authority cannot depend on its age. If the Book of Mormon’s message is profound, that alone should be sufficient reason for serious analysis and dialogue.” “A Rhetorical Approach to the Book of Mormon: Rediscovering Nephite Sacramental Language,” Metcalfe, 53. 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/historicity-and-latter-day-saint-scriptures/5-joseph-smith-and-historicity-book-mormon

Brigham Young, for instance, recalled some of those (clearly beyond the better-known “official” witnesses of the Book of Mormon) “who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, [but] were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” One of the early members of the Quorum of the Twelve, whom President Young described as “a young man full of faith and good works,” “prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends; but after all this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostacy, and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in a similar condition.”[4][4] Journal of Discourses (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 7:164.  

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/historicity-and-latter-day-saint-scriptures/9-notes-historicity-and-inerrancy

vi) There needs to be more discussion regarding when the argument from silence is weak or strong. There are some parallels here concerning the minimalist/maximalist debate in biblical archeology. 

For instance, critics like Thomas Thompson, Hector Avalos, Peter Enns and Israel Finkelstein appeal to archeology to deny the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest. So we need to discuss when the argument from silence is legitimate or illegitimate. 

Scholars like Kenneth Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament) and Duane Garrett (commentary on Exodus) do a nice job of explaining why we wouldn't expect direct corroborative evidence for the Exodus to survive. For instance, Hebrew slaves lived in mudbrick huts that wouldn't survive in the Nile Delta, which as a river basin and flood plain. By the same token, papyri wouldn't survive under those conditions. You have monumental inscriptions on Pharaonic tombs, but that's royal propaganda. 

Likewise, Douglas Stuart (commentary on Exodus) estimates the number of Israelites in the wilderness at between 28K-36K. No reason to think they'd leave much behind. 

By the same token, Kitchen notes that Jericho has been subject to tremendous erosion, fire, and reuse of building materials. So how much would survive from the time of the Conquest? 

There are tricky debates of the identification/location of places like Ai. However, these villages are only about the size of a city block.

So there are lots of reasonable explanations for why we don't have archeological corroboration for some of these sites or events. 

vii) At the same time, there's a surprising amount of archeological corroboration of Scripture. Surprising considering the fact that Israel and 1C Christians were politically insignificant, so we wouldn't expect ancient historians to say much about them in the first place. Not to mention how little has survived the ravages of time. Likewise, archeology has only scratched the surface. 

viii) By contrast, there doesn't seem to be any archeological confirmation for the Mormon "scriptures." For instance:

The Book of Mormon tells that a small band of Israelites under Lehi migrated from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere about 600 B.C. Upon Lehi's death his family divided into two opposing factions, one under Lehi's oldest son, laman (see Lamanites), and the other under a younger son, Nephi ₁ (see Nephites). 

During the thousand-year history narrated in the Book of Mormon, Lehi's descendants went through several phases of splitting, warring, accommodating, merging, and splitting again. At first, just as God had prohibited the Israelites from intermarrying with the Canaanites in the ancient Promised Land ( Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3), the Nephites were forbidden to marry the Lamanites with their dark skin ( 2 Ne. 5:23; Alma 3:8-9). But as large Lamanite populations accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and were numbered among the Nephites in the first century B.C., skin color ceased to be a distinguishing characteristic. After the visitations of the resurrected Christ, there were no distinctions among any kind of "ites" for some two hundred years. But then unbelievers arose and called themselves Lamanites to distinguish themselves from the Nephites or believers ( 4 Ne. 1:20). 

The concluding chapters of the Book of Mormon describe a calamitous war. About A.D. 231, old enmities reemerged and two hostile populations formed ( 4 Ne. 1:35-39), eventually resulting in the annihilation of the Nephites. The Lamanites, from whom many present-day Native Americans descend, remained to inhabit the American continent. Peoples of other extractions also migrated there. 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Native_Americans

That's putatively an Iron Age culture. What metal implements would we expect to survive from that place and period? 

What about pottery, stone buildings, &c? A Hebrew equivalent to Mesoamerican Indian civilizations (e.g. Inca, Aztec, Maya).

What are the estimated population projections for that time period?

The putative terminus at quem is about half as long ago as the Exodus and Conquest. So we'd expect more to survive. 

ix) Worse still, the problem with the Mormon "scriptures" isn't merely lack of corroborative evidence, but counterevidence. For instance:

http://signaturebooks.com/2014/08/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

Homosexual jihad

I'm reposting some comments I left at Denny Burk's blog two months ago:

steve hays May 23, 2015 at 2:38 am #

“and that the legalization of gay marriage will STRENGTHEN these family units?”

“Gay marriage” is not a family unit, but a Trojan horse to destroy the family.

“Unless you propose banning adoptions by gay persons, and banning the usage of assisted reproductive technology by gay persons, your argument rings hollow.”

Actually, both ought to be banned.

“The studies which have been conducted in this area by sociologists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals all reach exactly the same conclusion — children raised by gay couples fare just as well on every measure of emotional and mental health as children raised by heterosexual couples.”

You mean like this study?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418758/was-gay-marriage-paper-fabricated-mark-regnerus

“Gay couples…”

There’s no such thing as a gay couple. Homosexuals (especially men) are notoriously promiscuous. What about gay throuples?

“To quote from Judge Richard Posner’s brilliant decision…”

The courts are rigged because they preemptively discount religious arguments and natural law arguments. Having dictated what evidence is permissible, it’s easy for them to ridicule weak arguments. Those are the only argument they allow.

“No heterosexual marriage will be influenced one iota by permitting gay couples to marry. Heterosexual couples will remain free to raise their children with love and affection…”

To the contrary, the homosexual lobby’s animosity towards religion and parental rights is destroying heterosexual parenting. For instance:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

“Gay persons wish to marry for the same reasons that heterosexual persons wish to marry — to express to society their commitment and dedication to each other, and to provide an optimal environment for the raising of children (a surprisingly high percentage of gay couples are currently raising children).”

In general, “gay persons” don’t really care to marry. For instance:

The “problem” with that is that as surveys have shown, while most homosexuals want both corporate benefits and gay marriage to be legalized, they don’t actually want to get married. As Homosexual advocate Dan Savage has argued, “monogamy is boring.” 

Holland has had gay marriage for over a decade, yet only 20% of gay couples there have chosen to marry (as compared to 80% of heterosexual Dutchmen) similar stats can be found in Massachusetts. There tends to be an initial “novelty” surge and then the same-sex marriage rate declines. There is also a huge disproportion between the number of Lesbian and Gay Male marriages. Lesbians are simply far more likely to marry…. I’m struggling to remember the Pew figures but I remember reading in 2013 that 3/5ths of all gay marriages reported nationwide were female-female. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gay-couples-tie-the-knot-for-health-benefits-1431475509

“The ‘responsible channeling of procreation’ arguments have all been eviscerated by the courts.”

Citing judicial opinion is an illicit argument from authority. Judges don’t determine reality. They don’t have the inside corner on truth and falsehood, right and wrong.

“with 38 states currently having legalized gay marriage.”

Generally imposed by judicial fiat rather than popular demand and the consent of the governed.

“younger persons are much more accepting of gay marriage than are older persons.”

Younger people generally become more conservative after they marry and begin raising a family.

Many liberal couples have dogs instead of kids. In that respect, liberal ideology is threatened by a demographic death spiral.

The cards that are dealt you

Some comments I left at Justin Taylor's blog ("Just How Sovereign is God?"):

steve hays says:

July 26, 2015 at 11:38 am

i) What makes you think predestination would render the cross unnecessary? The purpose of the cross is to atone for the sins of the elect. How does predestination nullify that need? Without atonement, the guilt of sin remains.

ii) Likewise, if an outcome is caused by a chain of events, it would not occur apart from every link in the chain occurring in due order.

iii) What makes you think predestination implies that a person is saved apart from faith, prayer, worship, Bible-reading? According to predestination, faith, prayer, worship, &c. are themselves predestined. It’s not just winding up to heaven that’s “determined beforehand,” but every event in a believer’s life.

You seem to be confusing predestination with fatalism. According to fatalism (at least one popular definition), the fated outcome will occur not matter what happens in-between. But according to predestination, the predestined outcome will occur because God predestined a course of actions leading up to that outcome.

Now, you may reject predestination, but you don’t even seem to grasp the concept.

It is not simply the outcome that’s determined beforehand, but every step along the way. The entire journey is determined beforehand, not merely the destination.

iv) Why would you define saving faith as a “decision” rather than recognition of the truth, as well as trusting in God?

v) It’s unclear how your clock metaphor proves your point. The clock and the clockmaker are two different entities. Moreover, the fact that clocks are wound up and set by someone else doesn’t render them useless. They still tell the time.

vi) Faith is a prerequisite of salvation because faith is a virtuous mental habit. Rational creatures ought to have faith in God. Sin is an impediment to faith. But God regenerates the elect. God is fixing the damage due to sin. Faith is a result of grace.

vii) I’d add that in this post, Justin is taking the inspiration of Scripture for granted. This is a (sample) presentation of what Scripture teaches, not a defense of what Scripture teaches. If a commenter is not a Christian, he will, of course, reject the testimony of Scripture, but that’s a separate debate. If Justin did a post on what Scripture teaches regarding the Virgin Birth or 10 plagues of Egypt, an unbeliever might raise rationalistic objections. But that’s a separate issue.

steve hays says:

July 26, 2015 at 3:36 pm

“I think that the predestination does away with the value of the cross because if we aren’t ultimately in control of the atoms in our body that act out our sinful thoughts and deeds, then we can’t be ultimately be accountable for them. It seems unfair
to me.”

i) That strikes me as a non sequitur. The value of the cross isn’t based on what you do, but on what Jesus did.

ii) Two points regarding moral accountability:

a) What’s the alternative to actions determined beforehand? Are your actions uncaused? If so, how can you be in control of uncaused actions?

Or does something cause your actions? Your brain? Your mental states?

If so, is your mental state caused or uncaused?

If you’re actions are caused, that seems to be deterministic. If they are uncaused, that makes them random. So your alternative generates a moral dilemma of its own.

b) If you really wish to delve into the philosophical literature on determinism and moral responsibility, here’s a sample:

http://www.andrewmbailey.com/jmf/The_Cards_That_Are_Dealt_You.pdf

http://www.andrewmbailey.com/jmf/Frankfurt_Cases_Moral_of_the_Stories.pdf

“But most importantly, which you didn’t comment on, why would we make any efforts to go and evangelize? Not because salvation would be dependent on these actions being performed.”

i) I did comment on that. Salvation is dependent on evangelism. There’s a predestined link between evangelism and salvation. A predestined means-ends relation.

ii) If you’re predestined to make that effort, you can’t avoid making that effort.

“A righteous God would not predestine people to not believe in Him and then punish them for not doing so.”

That begs the question. That’s both theologically and philosophically disputable.

“But if a clock was originally made to malfunction by the clockmaker and then would be destroyed because of it’s malfunction, then what does that say about the clockmaker?”

It would mean the clock served its purpose. Suppose a terrorist orders a clockmaker to design a timer for his bomb. The clockmaker designs a timer that will prematurely detonate, killing the terrorist rather than his intended victims. It was designed to malfunction, but for a good reason.

“Furthermore you have mentioned the ‘elect’ a couple of times. Could I ask what your opinion is on evangelizing? What’s the purpose of it in in your eyes?”

Because faith in Christ is a condition of salvation. That’s perfectly consistent with predestination. God predestines who will be saved, predestines who will be evangelized, predestines who will believe. God foreordains every element of the relation. Not just the end-result, but the intervening conditions.

Election is not an isolated fact. Election entails other facts.

To take a comparison, suppose I’m predestined to father two kids. That, in turn, entails other predestined facts. For instance, that I’m predestined to impregnate a woman at least twice.

steve hays says:

July 27, 2015 at 12:52 pm

Several problems with your argument:

i) I haven’t mentioned this before, but for some reason you confine sin to sinful actions. But in Scripture, one can have sinful attitudes.

ii) In addition, you seem to be a physicalist. You indicate that human beings are reducible to a particular configuration of atoms.

If so, it isn’t clear to me how a collection of particles is morally responsible.

iii) For your argument to go through, it would have to be based on the actions of each individual. But according to Scripture, although sinners are judged by their individual deeds, that’s not the only basis for condemnation. According to Rom 5, there’s such a thing as vicarious condemnation. To be judged in Adam.

iv) Conversely, there’s vicarious atonement. To be acquitted or justified in Christ. You yourself appeal to penal substitution.

In both cases, we aren’t judged (or acquitted) directly. Rather, another agent (Adam, Christ) acted on our behalf and in our stead.

According to Scripture, we can be held to account for the actions of a second party–for good or ill.

Therefore, personal responsibility isn’t reducible to your individual actions. In Scripture, there’s such a thing as vicarious responsibility.

I could stop right there, since your argument is self-contradictory, but let’s comment on a few other statements:

“Consider the following case: a professional puppet master commits a murder by manipulating a puppet in such a way that the puppet grabs hold of a knife and slits the throat of the puppet master’s sleeping neighbor. Would it be rightful to send the puppet to jail? No, of course not, the rightful condemnation of the action falls on the puppet master.”

i) That’s vitiated by a crucial disanalogy between puppets and predestined human agents. Puppets are mindless. And they have no power of action.

By contrast, predestined human beings are conscious, self-aware agents who can deliberate, and act on their intentions.

ii) People are often easy to manipulate because they are predictable. They have certain character traits. Likes and dislikes. As such, if you know enough about them, you can push their buttons.

Take the hothead. He’s easily provoked. 

Suppose the hothead sleeps with my wife, and I want to exact revenge. The dumb way would be for me to injure him. That would be dumb because that would expose me to criminal liability. 

The smart way would be to maneuver him into a situation where he gets himself into serious trouble with the law.

Even though he was manipulated, he is still culpable. Indeed, it might be just deserts.

Another example is fear of losing face. In shame cultures you can easily maneuver some people into doing things, because they’d lose the respect of their peers if they refused. Take a duel.

But that doesn’t ipso facto exonerate the person who allowed himself to be manipulated due to his slighted sense of honor. 

“If determinism is true, then there would be no way to surprise God, right? Well, what about Luke 7:9, where Jesus was amazed at the faith of the centurion. Surely if God had predetermined the faithful attitude of the Centurion, he would not be amazed by it? Did He fool Himself?”

i) Does that mean you’re an open theist? You reject divine omniscience?

ii) Jesus was human as well as divine. With respect to his humanity, Jesus could be taken by surprise. That doesn’t mean God can be taken by surprise, because that’s equivocal in reference to a person with two-natures.

“but could you please elaborate on how you think the death and eternal suffering of unbelievers serves a greater purpose?”

i) It’s unclear how that question relates to predestination. Orthodox freewill theists (e.g. classical Arminians) also espouse the doctrine of everlasting punishment.

ii) Justice is good in its own right. It’s not merely a means to an end, but a value in itself.

iii) Damnation reveals the justice of God. It is good to know that God is good.

Peep-stones

Here's documentation that Joseph Smith was a smalltime conman and charlatan whose "revelations" about the lost tribes of Israel were indebted to popular speculations about the origin of American Indians and their lost civilizations:

Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/scripture-test-01/

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/indian-origins-and-the-book-of-mormon-02/

Robert N. Hullinger, Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph-smith-–-skepticism-05/

A Tale of Two Intercessions

While there are many covenants in Scripture, I think there are three main ones that deal with the totality of Israel. Others may be covenants with more than Israel, such as the covenant with Noah (made between God and the whole Earth), or less than the whole of Israel, like the Davidic covenant which is limited to David's lineage in particular.

Two of the remaining covenants are definitely dealing with Israel as a whole: the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. I think that we can add the New Covenant in to that as well, although for that one we are dealing with "spiritual Israel" and not "national Israel". The main figures of these covenants all share in an aspect of intercession. The most obvious being Christ interceding for His people at the throne of God. But for this post, I want to look at the intercessions of Abraham and Moses.

In the case of Abraham, God establishes His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. Then, in Genesis 17 it's reaffirmed with circumcision given as the sign. Immediately after, in chapter 18, we read:

The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:17-21, ESV).

Thus, because of the covenant promises God made to Abraham, God reveals that He is about to destroy the wicked towns. Abraham intercedes by appealing to God's sense of righteousness: "Then Abraham drew near and said, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?'" (Genesis 18:23, ESV). And we know the story. God says He would not destroy the towns if ten righteous people could be found.

In one sense, Abraham's intercession worked. God agreed to his request. But in another sense, it failed because the towns were destroyed anyway. The people in the towns could not meet the requirements of the intercession.

Turning to Exodus, we see a similar setup. God first establishes the covenant in Exodus 24:

Then he [Moses] took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exodus 24:7-8).

Moses then goes up Mount Sinai for forty days and nights, and the Israelites immediately make a golden calf and worship the idol. Thus we read:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’” And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you” (Exodus 32:7-10, ESV).

Just as with Abraham, God informs Moses that He is about to destroy a people. And just like Abraham, Moses intercedes:

But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’” And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people (Exodus 32:11-14, ESV).

The sins of Israel were, in some ways, far worse than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah here. After all, the Cities on the Plain had never had a covenant with God; they had never agreed to be obedient to Him. Israel had agreed to that, and they had within days turned from the LORD. They had literally just seen the gods of Egypt crushed by the might of Yahweh, and fashioned their idol out of the jewelry they had looted from the broken Egyptians who begged them to leave.

But also notice here how Moses’s intercession differs from Abraham’s intercession before Sodom. Abraham appealed to the righteous, and God agreed He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. Moses appealed to God’s Name, which He had given to His people, before the country of Egypt. After having saved Israel with His might, would the Egyptians get the last laugh as God destroyed the people He had just "saved"? Not only that, Moses also appealed to the very covenant God had made with Abraham, and reaffirmed with Isaac and Jacob (called here by the name of Israel, which does refer to the person and not the nation). It was God’s promises that Moses presented as the basis for mercy.

Abraham’s appeal did not ultimately work because there were not even ten righteous people in the town of Sodom. Moses, by not relying upon the goodness of the people involved, actually succeeded in having God not destroy the nation of Israel because he relied not on the inherent goodness of the people of Israel (who had already proven themselves to be evil), but instead upon the promises that God had made, that He would bless the nation of Israel.

Bible, gender, and sexuality

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/bible-gender-sexuality.php

Tokenism, Moral Colonialism, and Gay Marriage

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2015/07/tokenism-moral-colonialism-and-gay-marriage/

You're fired!

15 Love not the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that's in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not from the Father but the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of thereof; but whoever does the will of God abides forever (1 Jn 2:15-17).

Thus far I've avoided saying anything about Donald Trump's presidential bid. Indeed, I've avoided reading about it. I have only a glancing awareness of it. A few quick observations:

i) Back in the olden days, movie theaters used to have double features, with an intermission. And before the first feature there was a news reel plus cartoons. The objective of all this was to sell popcorn and candy. These were literally popcorn movies. 

We're in the popcorn phase of the presidential campaign, before it gears up in earnest. Trump is the cartoon. It's summer entertainment for restless pundits before things get serious. "News" filler. So they head for the concession stand. 

ii) He got the same buzz during the last presidential election cycle. That fizzled. 

iii) I'm guessing this is his last hurrah. He's already 69. Will he try it again in 4 years? Even if he does, interest will dwindle. If you run too many times, you become a running joke.

iv) Trump is the stereotypical New Yorker. The in-your-face demeanor. All elbows. 

I'm not saying that's representative of New Yorkers. I'm not qualified to say. Everything I know about New York I learned from movies and TV dramas. But he certainly fits the stereotype. 

v) Trump is a shameless self-promoter. There are two reasons for this. To begin with, he's monumentally egotistical. In addition, it's good for business. He's made "Trump" a brand name. Irving Berlin once said, "The toughest thing about success is that you’ve got to keep on being a success."

That's the challenge for overachievers like Trump. Running for president is just another way to make headlines. And for a businessman, there's a relationship between the headline and the bottom-line. As Neil Gaiman says, "Notoriety wasn't as good as fame, but was heaps better than obscurity."

vi) Another reason Trump is such a loudmouth is because there are lots of oversized personalities in New York. Lots of competition. You have to keep your elbows sharpened. Stainless steel elbows. 

Indeed, by New York standards, Trump isn't that big. Compare him to Michael Bloomberg. In addition to being the three-term mayor of the Big Apple, Bloomberg's net worth is around $35 billion, give or take. According to Forbes, Trump is worth 4 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal, his assets tally at 1.5 billion. When you're smaller, you have to be louder to get attention. 

vii) Trump is not only a rich man, but the son of a rich man. His father was nouveau riche, which makes the son old money. That gives him a fearless quality. Growing up, there was only one person in life he had to please: his dad. Due to his wealth, he's never been in a position to feel threatened by anyone else. So he's not afraid to speak his mind. His personal fortune insulates him from reprisal.

Fearlessness isn't the same thing as courage. You can be a fearless coward. Trump's fearlessness has never been put to the test. 

viii) In addition, if you don't expect to win, that's liberating. If you don't expect to win, you are free to say whatever you think. That's something he and Huckabee share in common. 

ix) Theoretically, a debate match-up between Hillary and Trump might be refreshing if he turned his bulldozer personality on her. But they have so much in common ideologically that he can't really take advantage of her views. A better debate match-up would be between Hillary and Fiorina. As another woman, she wouldn't be deferential to Hillary. She's far more accomplished than Hillary. And she's maintained her completive edge. (Mind you, I'm not recommending Fiorina.)  

Hillary has a reputation for toughness, but she usually plays to a sympathetic, hand-picked audience.  

x) Right now he's an annoying distraction. I hope he goes away–like last time.

For all his pampered existence, Trump is a pitfall man. Like other ambitious men who live for mundane glory, he kicks and claws his way to become king of the dunghill. But worldly rewards are ephemeral. It's a short reign, like all who came before you, and all who come after you're gone. 

Post-colonial Catholicism

It's interesting to compare and contrast Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

i) Trent was a rearguard action. Post-Reformation Catholicism was like a post-colonial Empire. The remnants of the erstwhile empire. 

When colonies or satellite countries break away, they effectively redraw the political map. The new borders of the erstwhile empire are drawn from the outside. Its borders were pushed back by the loss of its colonies or satellite countries. 

At Trent, Rome allowed itself to be defined by Protestants. It ratified by boundaries drawn by Protestants. Rome was whatever the Protestants were not, and vice versa.

Whoever erects a fence first draws the boundary for both sides. By the time Trent was convened, the Reformation was irreversible. Trent was simply an acknowledgement of the new status quo. An admission of defeat. A forced accommodation to what it could not change.

Trent was not itself disruptive. The disruption had already occurred. At Trent, Rome was cutting her losses and conserving what remained. 

ii) Vatican I was a one-man ego trip. Unlike Trent, which was necessary, Vatican II was elective.  

Although it wasn't terribly damaging, it proved to be an embarrassment to the papacy. Problem is, the pope claims to be infallible under vaguely specified circumstances, but he rarely dares to exercise that alleged prerogative, for the moment he makes a testable "infallible" proclamation, he will disprove his infallibilist pretensions.

It's not coincidental that this prerogative has only been exercised twice since Vatican I, and on both occasions to proclaim safely unfalsifiable dogmas. The pope might as well issue an infallible encyclical on the mating habits of unicorns. You can't disprove it.

iii) Vatican II was very disruptive. And on the face of it, this was an unforced error. I don't know why John XXIII convened it. Not beyond the catchphrases about "aggiornamento" and "throwing the windows open to let in the fresh air."

One possible interpretation is that John XXIII was like Gorbachev. His Russian counterpart understood that the Soviet Empire was militarily and economically unsustainable. In that situation, you have two options: you can just let the empire fall apart–like the Roman empire and the Ottoman empire. Or you can take the initiative. 

Either way, there will be losses. But if you take the initiative, you have more control over the outcome. If, by contrast, you simply wait for the empire to crumble on its own, you will be entirely at the mercy of events. Others will dictate the end-game.

Maybe John XXIII thought the Tridentine/anti-modernist paradigm was unsustainable, and he wanted to get out ahead of the inevitable break up. Indeed, even under his predecessor, the papacy was making tactical concessions to modernism (e.g. Humani Generis; Divino afflante Spiritu).

One problem with that attractive interpretation is that John XXIII isn't reputed to have been much of a thinker. Perhaps, though, the impetus came from theological advisors. In the council itself, modernism was well represented among an influential contingent of bishops and their perti. Even Joseph Ratzinger was originally a progressive theologian.  

But at Vatican II, Rome lost her balance, and has yet to right herself. But perhaps, had she tried to maintain the Tridentine/anti-modernist paradigm, that would have run aground. When the fundamentals are unsound, there's only so much you can do to postpone disaster.  

On Bart Ehrman and the authorship of the gospels

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-bart-ehrman-and-authorship-of-gospels.html

The Spirit of the Age

A piece well worth reading: "The Spirit of the Age" by Matthew Schultz.

Here and hereafter

I'll comment on Bnonn's sequel: 

http://bnonn.com/what-does-baptism-signify/

The first thing I'd note is that Bnonn's follow-up argument is far more complicated that his original argument. Yet the advertised merit of his original argument was its simplicity. Well, it didn't take long to leave simplicity behind. In order to defend his original argument, the supporting argument becomes fairly complex. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, of course. But that just means we're unlikely to win quick and easy victorious in longstanding theological debates. 

"For instance, many pedobaptists argue that children of covenant members are themselves covenant members, or should at least be taken as such, until they are old enough to explicitly repudiate that membership."

That's certainly a popular contemporary formulation. But it's questionable whether that represents the traditional Presbyterian view:

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

"So pedobaptists take a “loose, implicit” approach to membership. Members of the community and members of the covenant seem broadly conterminous in their view."

That wasn't my argument. Indeed, my argument explicitly distinguished the two. I see them as overlapping categories. 

Take this argument: kids that age are viewed as extensions of their parents. They aren't viewed as independent agents. 

It's like belonging to a family. You were born into it. 

"Conversely, credobaptists take a “tight, explicit” approach. There are many members of the community (children, unbelieving spouses, etc) who are not members of the covenant."

I could say the same thing in paedobaptist grounds, although I wouldn't use children to illustrate the point. 

"For my own part, I think pedobaptism is the natural position to take if the new covenant is basically the same as the old, and we are applying its signs in the same way; and if baptism merely signifies membership in the covenant community, or a kind of “implicit” membership in the covenant."

i) No doubt there are crucial differences. But even the OT distinguished between physical circumcision and "circumcision of the heart."

ii) A basic problem I have with Bnonn's position is that it suffers from overrealized eschatology. One reason I distinguish between membership in the new covenant and membership in the new covenant community is because the church isn't heaven. In a fallen world, including the church, the vegetable garden inevitably has wheat and tares. You can't weed out all the tares. You can't even see all the tares.

That doesn't mean you should abstain from church discipline, when the occasion presents itself. But because the church is unavoidably a mixed community, unlike heaven (or the world to come), there is bound to be a distinction between membership in the covenant and membership in the covenant community. 

Here below, the covenant community is a temporary and transitional organization. It's at the halfway mark on the journey. 

So you have to strike a balance. If you are too strict about membership, you will exclude some born-again Christians. Exclude some of the elect. If you are too lax, the church will mirror the world. 

"Christian baptism is modeled on the baptism of John; John’s baptism laid a foundation for and prefigured ours. But John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4). Those baptized were adults."

i) Isn't that appeal circular? If, by definition, John's baptism is a baptism of repentance; if, by definition, it was geared to adults, then by definition it's restricted to adults. It's like saying, "by definition, you can't be a married bachelor."

True, but tautologous. Like saying Alfa Romeo is an Italian sports car. No doubt. Does that mean all sports cars are Italian?

ii) Also, what was the age cut-off for John's baptism? Was it for adults, or did it include minors? Was the age of reason the threshold? 

Was John baptizing 7-8-year-old kids? That doesn't seem to be the targeted demographic niche. But that makes it disanalogous with credobaptism.  

"Baptism in Paul’s thinking signifies membership in the covenant because it signifies being made alive in Jesus—something reserved exclusively for covenant members.
Baptism is a symbol of regeneration. Thus it symbolizes covenant membership; not mere membership in the covenant community."
"Notice that baptism saves here. How? Not by removing spiritual dirt as water removes physical dirt, but by signifying our appeal to God through which are justified." 

Bnonn prooftexted this understanding by quoting or citing Rom 6:1-4, 1 Cor 5:17, Eph 2:5, Col 2:9, 1 Pet 3:21.

Several issues:

i) Because the mode of baptism is controversial, translators sidestep that controversy by transliterating the Greek word. If they were to translate the word, that would prejudge the mode of baptism. And their restraint is a prudent policy.

ii) Apropos (i), the English word "baptism" denotes a Christian sacrament (or "ordinance"). In English usage, it's a technical term for the Christian rite of initiation. Sometimes it's used figuratively. 

iii) Apropos (i-ii), this creates a risk of equivocation when citing baptismal texts from the NT. That's because, unlike the English word, the Greek word isn't a technical term for a Christian sacrament. It has more than one meaning. It can denote a Christian sacrament, or it can simply denote an action involving water. In addition, the Bible often uses aqueous theological metaphors.

When we read "baptism" (or "baptize") in the NT, we automatically associate that with a Christian sacrament. But that's conditioned by the connotations of the English word. The Greek word is less specialized and more polysemous. 

In the Gospels and Acts, the Gospels may make it clear that the word is used for water baptism. It's not the word alone, but the word in conjunction with the setting, that makes it refer to baptism. Indeed, that would be implicit even in the absence of the word.

But in the epistles, those narrative clues are often lacking. So you can't just assume, without further ado, that the Greek word denotes a Christian sacrament rather than a picturesque theological metaphor.  

iv) But even assuming, for the sake of argument, that all his prooftexts refer to the rite of baptism, they either prove too much or too little. 

a) These passages are hortatory and idealistic. They urge the recipients of the letter to emulate what baptism signifies. But that implies a gap between the sign and what they actually are. 

And that's a best-case scenario. That's for pious Christians who still fall short.

b) But, of course, Pauline churches also include Paul's opponents. They include heretics and apostates. What baptism signifies is in no sense true of them, even though they were baptized members of a local church planted by Paul. 

On Sola Scriptura: Andrew Fulford responds (robustly!) to Edward Feser

This is beautiful because Feser is pulling out all of the "best" Roman Catholic arguments, and he's getting whomped pretty clearly here.

https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/07/27/all-that-the-prophets-have-spoken-a-rejoinder-to-feser-pt-1/

The Gospels Agree About A Lot

During a recent discussion between Bart Ehrman and Tim McGrew on the Unbelievable? radio program, McGrew provided a summary of what he thought to be Ehrman's primary objections to the historicity of the gospels. Among other things, he said that Ehrman thinks the gospels are "full of contradictions…full of these kinds of errors, from one end to the other…it's hard to take them as reliable documents in the sense in which we might say Josephus' Antiquities is reliable when he deals with matters that are reasonably close to his own time and isn't wholly dependent upon ancient sources which he couldn't check up on" (start listening about ten minutes into the first part of their discussion). When I heard McGrew summarize Ehrman's position that way, I thought Ehrman would respond by saying that he doesn't think the gospels are that unreliable. He thinks they're largely unreliable and sometimes err and contradict one another, but not as much as McGrew suggested. Instead, Ehrman responded by saying that McGrew's summary of his (Ehrman's) view is accurate, that the summary is "right on. It's exactly, pretty much, what I think…absolutely accurate" (nineteenth minute). He then says that his view of the gospels is the mainstream view of critical New Testament scholarship.