A Thick Layer: A Fine-Tuned Critique of Arvin Ash

Luke Barnes responds to Arvin Ash on the fine-tuning argument.

Is it too little, too late?

John MacArthur says Grace Community Church will not obey California's ban on indoor worship services.  To that, I say, good job. There is only one problem.

Having taken this long to stand up to the overbearing, unconstitional, and immoral commands of California, it's going to be that much harder to argue in court that now it's an undue burden when four months ago it wasn't.  Having capitulated to the state before, it will be that much more difficult to take back the ground you previously surrendered, and the state most certainly will use your previous capitulation against you now.

It's almost like there's a reason one should always resist tyranny, even over so-called "trivial" issues.

John Before Papias, Pothinus Before Irenaeus

It's popular among modern critics of Christianity to overestimate the influence of individuals like Papias and Irenaeus. Supposedly, gospel authorship attributions during the patristic era were inordinately derived from Papias, for example. I've responded to that kind of assertion on other occasions, like here. On the alleged lack of traditional gospel authorship attributions prior to Irenaeus, see here.

A point that hasn't been made enough when these issues come up is how much Papias refers to his reliance on other sources. Read the discussion of him in section 3:39 of Eusebius' Church History, for example. Papias was gathering information from sources who were older than him and in other ways more prominent than he was, men like Aristion and the elder John. That's true even if you don't think the John in question was the son of Zebedee. Papias had influence on later generations (though less than is often suggested), but he also was influenced by those who came before him. And one of the subjects those earlier sources influenced him on was the origins of the gospels, including their authorship. Papias tells us that he tried to get information on Jesus and his disciples from anyone who was in a relevant position to inform him on the subject. It would be unreasonable to think that he only got information from the people he names for us in his extant fragments (e.g., Aristion) or their disciples. A church leader like Papias who was so interested in the subject, lived so long, and lived in such a significant part of the world surely would have heard from more sources than the ones whose names happen to appear in the fragments of his writings we have today. Irenaeus is obviously correct when he refers to how there were many people alive at that time "who had received instructions from the apostles" (Against Heresies, 3:3:3). But even if we were to limit the sources who influenced Papias to the people he names in his extant fragments, the fact would remain that he was influenced by multiple individuals who came before him, including on issues pertaining to the origins of the gospels.

Similarly, not much attention is given to Irenaeus' predecessor in the bishopric of Lyons, a man named Pothinus, who died beyond age ninety in the late 170s (Eusebius, Church History, 5:1:29). He was a contemporary of the apostles at a young age and a contemporary of the apostles' disciples as a grown man. When discussing a textual dispute over a passage in Revelation, Irenaeus appeals to copies of the book that were "ancient" in his day (Against Heresies, 5:30:1). He probably also saw old copies of the gospels, with the authors' names attached in one way or another (in a document title, on the spine of a codex, etc.). These are just a couple of examples of sources Irenaeus would have been influenced by (Pothinus, old gospel manuscripts), and more could be cited. Irenaeus names Papias as a source he consulted, but it would be absurd to suggest that he got his information on a subject like gospel authorship only from Papias or that all of his other sources, or even most, were relying only on Papias.

I was recently reminded of a relevant, but seldom discussed, passage in Nicephorus (fragment A7 here). He refers to a man named Pancratius and describes him as a disciple of the apostles who was active around the time when Papias wrote. As far as I know, we don't have much information about Pancratius. Nor do we know much about the individual named Aristion who's referenced by Papias. And there are many individuals referred to in the gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, etc. about whom we have little information. But they were in some ways more known and more prominent in their day than today, and men like Papias thought highly of them and sought information from them and about them. They had already shaped people's views about the origins of the gospels on a large scale before anybody like Papias or Irenaeus had an opportunity to do so.

Mathison reviews The Unseen Realm

Keith Mathison at Ligonier Ministries reviews The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser.

Alexander Pruss on the Existence of God

A Christian's Perseverance And Growth

Last year, I wrote about how to grow as a Christian. In addition to my own comments, the post links some remarks Steve Hays made on a related topic.

"It is hard to understand how an orthodox, evangelical, Bible-believing Christian can fail to be excited. The answers in the realm of the intellect should make us overwhelmingly excited. But more than this, we are returned to a personal relationship with the God who is there. If we are unexcited Christians, we should go back and see what is wrong." (Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998], 190)

At ease in Zion! Where is then the cross,
The Master's cross, all pain and shame defying?
Where is the true disciple's cross and cup,
The daily conflict and the daily dying,
The fearless front of faith, the noble self-denying?

At ease in Zion! Shall no sense of shame
Arouse us from our self-indulgent dreaming?
No pity for the world? No love to Him
Who braved life's sorrow and man's disesteeming,
Us to God's light and joy by His dark death redeeming?
(Horatius Bonar, "At Ease In Zion", Hymns Of The Nativity [London, England: James Nisbet & Co., 1879], 35-36)

J. I. Packer (1926-2020)

Tributes:

• Randy Alcorn
• Sam Allberry
• Dustin Benge
• Wallace Benn
• Hans Boersma
• Gerald Bray
• Don Carson
• Grant Castleberry
• Glenn Davies
• Philip De Courcy
• Jamie Dean
• Jason DeRouchie
• Mark Dever
• David Dockery
• Ligon Duncan
• John Frame
• Lee Gatiss
• Michael Haykin
• Paul Helm. Also see Helm's older piece on Packer's 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God.
• John Hendryx
• Bruce Hindmarsh
• Rick Holland
• Chris Humfrey
• Peter Jensen
• Terry L. Johnson
• Mike Licona, Paul Copan, Dan Wallace, Gregg Monette
• David Mathis
• Conrad Mbewe
• Stephen McCaskell
• Ivan Mesa
• Al Mohler
• Tom Nettles
• Marvin Olasky
• Ray Ortlund
• Timothy Padgett
• Gavin Peacock
• Nate Pickowicz
• Peter Pike
• John Piper
• John Piper redux
• Regent College
• Leland Ryken
• Tom Schreiner
• David Short, Ben Kwashi, Leslie Thyberg, Joel Scandrett
• George Sinclair
• John Stonestreet
• Sam Storms
• Owen Strachan
• Don Sweeting
• Justin Taylor
• Erik Thoennes
• Mark Thompson
• Carl Trueman
• Carl Trueman redux
• James White
• Paul S. Williams
• Peter Williams
• Stephen Witmer

In addition, Crossway has some material about and from Packer. This includes a free ebook titled Weakness Is the Way.

Arguing For Hell

We've written a lot over the years in support of a traditional Christian view of hell. See, for example, pages 145-57 of The End Of Infidelity, where Steve Hays and I responded to Keith Parsons on the subject. We address a lot of issues there (objections to the fiery images of hell in scripture and later Christian tradition, whether everybody in hell will suffer equally, how many people will go there, whether children go there, etc.). There's other relevant material in the archives of this blog.

I recently heard Greg Koukl discuss the view that hell is self-perpetuating, in the sense that hell will keep going because people in hell will keep sinning. He thinks highly of the view, but isn't committed to it and isn't aware of any Biblical passage affirming it. However, he refers to how Amy Hall, who works with him at Stand To Reason, advocates the view. I advocate it as well, and I briefly discuss what I consider some Biblical support for it in the section of The End Of Infidelity cited above.

And I want to highlight a point about hell that's often neglected. It's common for people to say that they reject a particular organized religion or organized religion more broadly because of what it teaches about hell. Or it will be suggested that nobody would believe in hell if they weren't told to believe in it by a religious book, religious authority figures, and so on. It's common to assert that some religious belief or another, whether hell or something else, was fabricated by religious authorities to control people, influence them, or whatever.

For a Christian, the teaching of scripture on hell is our primary reason for accepting the concept and a sufficient reason for accepting it. But the extrabiblical evidence has some significance.

We've occasionally discussed some of the philosophical issues associated with hell. For example, as discussed above, if sinning continues in hell, then hell would be self-perpetuating in that sense, even if one were to reject the concept of one sin warranting eternal punishment. And philosophical arguments aren't equivalent to organized religion.

Several years ago, I wrote an article on hellish near-death experiences (NDEs). As I document there, hellish NDEs are more common than is often suggested. I suspect the large majority of people, in fact, underestimate how common such NDEs are. They vary widely, but some of them do involve a hell that's perceived as lengthy or eternal or that has some other characteristic that people object to when that characteristic is taught by an organized religion.

The significance of such NDEs will be different for different people. I'll provide some examples.

Some people have a view of the afterlife that's largely shaped by paranormal phenomena. For those who hold the highest sort of view of the veridicality of NDEs, the evidence from hellish NDEs will be more significant accordingly.

But even for those who hold a more subjective view of NDEs (as I do), they offer some support for the concept of hell. Even if NDEs are generally something like a supernatural dream or supernatural virtual reality, a state the soul enters when released from the body by some mechanism, it doesn't follow that every NDE is of that nature. One or more could be some sort of highly objective foretaste of the afterlife, whether it involves traveling there, so to speak, a vision, or whatever else. And the fact that God allows people to have hellish NDEs, even if all of them are highly subjective (something I don't see how we could prove), demonstrates that God isn't of such a nature as to not let anybody have such an experience. It would be similar to how the existence of wars, genocide, famine, natural disasters, etc. casts doubt on views of God that have him being highly accommodating to our intuitions, our preferences, our practices as parents, and so on. If your God wouldn't allow something like genocide or famine, then your God doesn't exist. And if your God wouldn't allow anybody to experience a hellish NDE, then your God doesn't exist. Similarly, the degree to which hellish NDEs occur tells us the degree to which God is willing to let such things happen. At a minimum, hellish NDEs increase the plausibility of hell.

As the thread I've linked above mentions (read the comments section as well, since there's some relevant material there), people who have hellish NDEs seem to report them less than people who have heavenly NDEs report theirs. Given the difficulty involved in reporting a hellish NDE, such as the shame involved, there's more reason to accept the sincerity of the people reporting such accounts accordingly. (I don't deny that other factors have to be taken into account, such as whether somebody sells a book about his hellish NDE or makes money from it in some other way. But the fact that we take such factors into account doesn't mean that we don't take the other factors I've mentioned into account as well.) Some people have a conversion experience, involving some kind of major change in their life, as a result of a hellish NDE, as discussed in the thread linked above, so that's another factor that adds to the credibility of such accounts.

The Enfield Poltergeist Investigation Committee Report

A few decades ago, the Society for Psychical Research set up the Enfield Poltergeist Investigation Committee to reinvestigate the Enfield case and produce a report on their findings. Go here to watch a segment of a documentary that provides an overview of the subject. The report has been hard to access, and those who have read it have had restrictions placed on what they can say about it. A commenter in a recent thread asked me whether I've read it, and here's my response. I want to highlight it here, since the topic is significant and since the exchange is buried deep in the comments section of a thread and could easily be missed otherwise.

The four horsemen

In light of COVID, Paul had the good idea to repost this piece from Steve:

"The four horsemen of the Apocalypse" (Steve Hays)

Nothing Is More Pragmatic Than Theology

In my daily reading of scripture, I recently came to chapter 7 in Matthew's gospel, where the section commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount ends. It's striking how Jesus' remarks close with his referring to the significance of the afterlife (7:21), himself as mankind's judge, who judges based on people's relationship with him (7:23), and his words as foundational to life (7:24). Matthew highlights how the crowd was impressed by his authority (7:29), not something like his sincerity, emotions, or love.

Modern culture typically gives far more attention to some of Jesus' earlier comments, such as what he said about peacemakers (5:9) and loving your enemies (5:44). There are many comments Jesus makes earlier in the Sermon on the Mount about God, the afterlife, and such, which often get ignored or underestimated, but the closing remarks of chapter 7 are especially striking.

One reason that's often given for placing so much focus on things like peacemaking and loving your enemies (often defined in highly anti-Biblical ways that Jesus would have opposed) is that such teachings are so pragmatic. By contrast, teachings about God, salvation, prayer, the afterlife, and such allegedly are far less practical, if they're practical at all. The same individuals who put so much emphasis on what Jesus said about loving people often ignore or give little attention to what Jesus said about how loving God is more important (Matthew 22:37-39). While modern culture has such inordinate concern about short-term physical welfare (giving people food, clothing, shelter, and medicine; helping them find a job; sexual pleasures, humor, and such), Jesus tells people to be prepared to give up something like an eye or a hand for welfare in the afterlife (Matthew 5:29-30, 18:8-9). I wrote the following about this subject on Facebook a few years ago:

Nothing is more pragmatic than theology. I recently had a conversation with a friend whose mother-in-law is dying. He's concerned that his mother-in-law, who comes from a Roman Catholic background, have the peace, comfort, joy, and other advantages of knowing that she's going to heaven rather than purgatory. But how many people are concerned enough about a subject like purgatory to research it to any significant extent before they get close to death? Our culture encourages us to not have much concern about theology in general, and, more specifically, it's often suggested, even by Christian leaders, that the differences between Catholics and Protestants don't matter much. Would they hold the same view on their deathbed, when the difference between heaven and purgatory is staring them in the face? Or would they tell a dying parent or friend to not be concerned about the issue? What if their child were to start praying to the dead? Would they be as unconcerned about the subject as they are now, when they're addressing it at a more abstract level? Theology is foundational to everything from the reliability of our reasoning to our purpose in life, what value we place on human life, our morality, and our hopes for justice and life after death. People who don't see the pragmatism in theology aren't thinking about it enough.

Jesus thought that matters like the primacy of God and the afterlife are deeply pragmatic and highly important.

God's incomprehensibility

"At 80, I’m More Aware of Mystery" (John Frame)

UFOs and religion

Does Presuppositionalism Confuse Ontology and Epistemology?

"Does Presuppositionalism Confuse Ontology and Epistemology?" (James Anderson)

Posted Without (Much) Comment

Phil Johnson gives his thoughts about Congregational Worship, Social Distancing, Submission to Caesar, and Obedience to God.

Hmm.  If only someone had warned about the inevitable nearly four months ago.

Oh well. C'est la vie. Que sera sera. Etwas auf Deutsch, also sieht es so aus, als hätte Luther es gesagt.

The mirror or the mask

Lydia McGrew has a new series responding to Mike Licona. It's expected to be a seven part series. So far there are two parts. Here's the first one:

Her new book The Mirror or the Mask is available to purchase too.

Do the Gospels contradict themselves?

"Do the Gospels Contradict Themselves?" (Peter Williams)

Ioannidis on COVID-19

"A Conversation with John Ioannidis"

The Importance Of Your Testimony As A Miracle Witness

In the comments section following my recent tribute to Maurice Grosse, I had a discussion with a commenter, Anthony, about a subject I want to expand upon here. It's significant, and it has implications beyond Enfield. He commented on how we haven't been hearing much lately from some of the Enfield witnesses. I discussed how common that sort of thing is (in life in general, not just in paranormal contexts), and I went into some of the reasons why it may happen in a given situation.

In the course of the discussion, I mentioned some examples of Enfield witnesses who have remained active in discussing the case and their involvement in it (Graham Morris and David Robertson). Another example who came to mind, though I didn't mention him there, is John Rainbow. You can go here to read a post I put up in January of 2019 about what Rainbow experienced and his importance as a witness. Something that's significant about him in this context is the situation surrounding his death. When Melvyn Willin was putting together his recent book on Enfield, he contacted some of the people involved in the original events to get their thoughts on the case a few decades later. Concerning Rainbow, he wrote:

Mrs Rainbow - the wife of John Rainbow a local tradesman who had witnessed Janet levitating - replied that unfortunately her husband had died in July 2018, but she confirmed that he had continued to believe that what he had seen was a genuine levitation. She added, "…he also had a witness who also saw what was happening [an apparent reference to Hazel Short]." (The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes [United States: White Crow Books, 2019], 117)

Notice how much had to be in place to produce that section of Willin's book. Rainbow would have to have an ongoing willingness to discuss the issues with other people. He did it to such an extent that his wife had the impression described above, that he held the belief in question until his death. And he'd made the relevant contact information available. His wife not only read the letter sent by Willin, but even responded to it and provided so much significant information and allowed her response to be published.

By contrast, think of how many people never tell anybody about such an experience they've had, only mention it once, don't provide any means of contacting them again later if the need arises, etc. How many witnesses' spouses would be willing to read a letter like Willin's, respond to it in such a valuable way, and allow the response to be published? Many people would be so apathetic, lazy, angry, or whatever that they wouldn't even do half that much. What Rainbow and his wife did is commendable, and I wish more people would do it.

If you've witnessed a miracle of some sort (or had some other significant experience), have you left any record of it for other people? Have you provided the relevant details to relatives, your church, or other people who could pass the information on to others over time? Have you made yourself available for further contact in case more information is needed? We should ask ourselves questions like these and apply the same scrutiny to ourselves that we apply to other miracle witnesses.

Not Just 1 Peter 3:15

People often underestimate the Biblical support for apologetics, largely because 1 Peter 3:15 gets cited so inordinately. There's often a false impression that there isn't much or anything to bring up beyond that passage.

See here for an overview of the importance of apologetics, including a discussion of other relevant Biblical passages and some extrabiblical factors involved. In addition to taking that sort of broad approach, we can cite entire Biblical books or chapters rather than just verses. Proverbs says a lot about the value of knowledge, discernment, wisdom, and other relevant intellectual categories, for example. Acts has a large amount of material relevant to apologetics. Think of chapters 17-19, for example. My article linked above discusses the significance of 17:31. On the significance of 18:27-28, see here. Regarding 19:8, which refutes the notion that we "can't argue people into the kingdom", see here. I've also written about the importance of 1 Peter 1:7. Another passage that's useful, among many more that could be cited, is Jeremiah 3:15. Leaders who "feed you on knowledge and understanding" are "after [God's] own heart". The passage is significant on more than one level. It so explicitly associates relational and emotional aspects of life (going after somebody's heart, shepherding, feeding) with intellectual categories. Because of the shepherding theme, it's a good passage to use in leadership contexts. It's also useful in that it's a 3:15 passage, which makes it easier to remember in light of 1 Peter 3:15. I've written elsewhere about the significance of Psalm 102:18.