Saturday, November 07, 2015

A Philosopher's Unexpected Journey

I linked to this before, but the full article was behind a paywall. Here's the article in full. BTW, the above is the original title:



Liam, my 10-year-old friend, recently asked me if I was a philosopher.
“Yes,” I replied.
“What do philosophers do?”
“We think a lot about arguments,” I said.
That seemed to satisfy him, and it satisfied me. But philosophy is deeper than arguments. It also summons reflection on the grisly vicissitudes of life—what breaks the heart and binds it back together. Philosophy originally was a discipline for finding out not just how to think, but how to live.
I am that rare person who has found my vocation and avocation to be one. I don’t need to escape into hobbies to compensate for my day job. As Robert Frost put it in “Two Tramps in Mud Time”:
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For Heaven and the future’s sakes.
I do what I love, and it usually benefits others. Research and teaching and mentoring is where I flourish. The gifts given to me have been confirmed, as the late seminary professor Howard Hendricks would say, by finding people with the gift of benefiting from my teaching and writing.
For years I’ve pondered the topic of lament. This is partially due to my melancholic nature; I once read a book called Against Happiness—and enjoyed it. But my wife, Becky, is the main reason for my scrutiny of this topic. A gifted writer and editor, Becky had been bedeviled by a bevy of chronic illnesses, each year worse than the year before. None were fatal. All were miserable. They handed down not a death sentence, but a life sentence. It was ailment upon ailment without respite. We lamented as we sought relief.
The losses compounded and gathered into a pattern of a life absent of common enjoyments such as vacations, sufficient sleep, church attendance, days and even hours free from pain, serendipitous activities, and more. In their place came doctors’ visits, medical tests, prescriptions, expensive supplements, counseling, prayer sessions, experiments with unorthodox medical practitioners, and more. Our searches for respite did not do much good. I often thought of Freud’s statement that at its best, psychoanalysis could bring “an acceptable level of misery.” That was about all we had.
The Book of Ecclesiastes became my lamp of lament, although it offered little to my wife. But in those well-thumbed pages, I found a light to shine on the path of pain.
The strain upon our marriage was heavy, sometimes crushing. But we took our vows to each other and before God seriously, and we soldiered on. I could find the solid ground of meaning in my writing and teaching. But for Becky, the sicker she became, the more these islands of meaning sank beneath her.

The Lamp of Lament

Neither Becky nor I could dodge the disappointments or counteract the bitterness that crept into our souls. The Book of Ecclesiastes became my lamp of lament, although it offered little to my wife. But in those well-thumbed pages, I found a light to shine on the path of pain. For most of the summer of 1999, it was the only book of the Bible I could read, because it speaks truth to the brokenness of this world and my own.
The categories of Creation, Fall, and Redemption aptly capture the Christian worldview. As a Christian philosopher, I consider the rationality of the Christian worldview often and from many angles. Now, though, I was forced to see myself as living “under the sun”—a scorching sun that dries up hopes and turns forests into deserts. The author of Ecclesiastes was neither a nihilist nor a fatalist, but saw life as raw and unfair:
I have seen something else under the sun:
The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all. (9:11)
Through these trials, Becky struggled to write and edit. As her health declined, each work became more difficult than the previous one. After writing two books, she labored for four years co-editing a major work on the theology of gender, contributing a long and carefully argued chapter. That was the last thing she wrote for publication. But page after page of my writing—books, reviews, essays, and academic papers—were marked by her corrections, questions, and deletions. We seldom argued over any of it. She made my work better, and we both knew it. Only God, Becky, and I know how much of her wisdom is woven into my work.
But she did not edit this essay.

The Beginning of Sorrows

Becky was diagnosed with fibromyalgia about 25 years ago. One of the many symptoms of this cruel disease is cognitive impairment, or “fibro-fog.” These symptoms became pronounced about 5 years ago. Paperwork took longer. Names would not come to mind. She stuttered.
One day Becky got lost on her way home from the hairdresser on a route she had driven for years. For several hours, I did not know where she was because she had forgotten to take her cell phone. She eventually called and stayed put until a friend and I arrived. I was slated to preach an apologetics message the next day at a local church. My anger at God and panic over my wife had, I thought, incapacitated and disqualified me. Upon calling the pastor to cancel, I found out that he thought otherwise. I delivered the message that Sunday—somehow. This was the beginning of sorrows.
One day Becky got lost on her way home from the hairdresser on a route she had driven for years. For several hours, I did not know where she was.
This episode shifted my concern to something more serious than fibro-fog. We consulted a neurologist, who thought Becky’s depression was mimicking dementia. He treated her month after month throughout most of 2013. The depression and cognitive impairment did not budge.
The day before Valentine’s Day 2014, Becky could not leave her bed. She did not respond to my solicitations. A friend came over to help me take Becky to the emergency room. After a 12-hour stay, she was transferred to a behavioral health unit some 30 miles from our home. I left the hospital with my friend, drove home, greeted my upset dog, and then listened to Dark Side of the Moon. Somehow this was what I had to do. The iconic Pink Floyd album reminds me of Ecclesiastes—except without God. That was how I felt.
The next day I taught a class on C. S. Lewis at Denver Seminary. I opened the class by telling my students what had happened the long day before. (I have never been good at hiding my personal life from students.) Since I had been re-reading Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, I spoke of trying to find meaning within suffering. If Frankl could resist the nihilism and despair of a concentration camp, then I could endure this. And, as a Christian, I knew that crucibles can shape us into the image of Christ. Frankl observed that those in the camps who lived for something beyond themselves never lost their will to live. He often quoted Nietzsche: “He who has a why can bear almost any how.” Religious faith could be this something, but so could other concerns. Frankl noted that many of the skeletal, chronically exhausted, and endlessly abused Jews persevered through their love for others, particularly for family members. They kept going for them.
Applying Frankl’s insight to myself, I told my students that I wanted to honor God and love my wife. But who made up my greater family? Besides Becky, I have almost no living relations. Because of her health, we have no children. I am an only child. My parents are dead. My relatives are distant geographically and not that close emotionally.
Every gaze in the class was on me, and no one seemed to be blinking. “I am going to find meaning in this for you—my students,” I told them. The weight of Becky’s illness already seemed overwhelming, so I resisted this role. Now I had no choice but to model virtuous Christian suffering. Later, one of my students told me that sitting in this class, he had “never felt more loved as a student.” Love remained as happiness fled and dread approached.
After Becky spent a few weeks in the hospital, a psychiatrist told me that she had primary progressive aphasia: a rare and cruel form of dementia that attacks the front of the brain before moving to the back. It is incurable, fatal, and horrible. The timetable was uncertain, but the outcome was not. She would lose her mind and know what was happening.
Embracing Ignorance
Becky has been home for over a year. We have someone living with us to help her. Once an avid reader, writer, and editor, Becky now wonders how to use her time. I often hear her drumming her fingers on the dining room table as I study in the basement. There are many unbidden adjustments for both of us to make. It seems unbearable, but we get up for another day. She is still Becky. She is still my wife. We have had 30 years of life together, and can draw from that deep well.
This narrative presents the beginning of our sorrows. Far more sorrows have since invaded our lives. But this should suffice. Life under the sun is just what the philosopher of Ecclesiastes said:
When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the labor that is done on earth—people getting no sleep day or night—then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it. (8:16–17)
As a philosopher, I yearn to hold and commend rational beliefs about the great and perennial issues of life. These are well summarized by Immanuel Kant: “1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” I am confident that Kant’s queries need not disarm us. They can be answered with intellectual satisfaction through Christian apologetics, theology, and the living of the Christian life. More specifically: 1. We can know God and his plan in the Bible. 2. We should love God and our neighbor. 3. The hope of the gospel does not disappoint us. The world will be remade in the Resurrection, so our labor is not in vain. We have reason to suffer without despair. I made that case in Christian Apologetics (2011). It’s the last book of mine that my wife will ever edit.
When I try to find the meaning in my wife’s suffering, I come up dry and gasping. Even as the disease progresses, she will still be made in God’s image
Yet when I try to find the meaning in my wife’s suffering, I come up dry and gasping. Even as the disease progresses, she will still be made in God’s image; she will still be in covenant with me; she will still be living out the vicissitudes of Providence. And yet, and yet: “Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it.” I know there is a larger meaning behind it all, but I cannot parse it out day by darkening day.
Ecclesiastes tells me to embrace my ignorance within the larger circle of knowledge—to mine meaning where I can and to look ahead with hope. Other Scripture, such the Psalms of Lament (i.e., 22, 88, and 90), recognize and ratify my anger, confusion, and fatigue, while placing them in the grand story of Scripture and before the presence of God. Still, I lament before God and man, trying to find a sure footing where I will not sink into self-pity and where I can smelt meaning out of misery—a footing from which I can offer up to God and to the world a hope worth hoping, because there is a God worth knowing.
Douglas Groothuis is professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. He is the author of Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press).



72 comments:

  1. Considering Rebecca has been a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood, I don't find it hard to believe that God's hand is against her in all this.

    Awful to read, but this is a terrible warning to those who would lead God's people astray, and the seriousness of tampering with the word of God. God also cast Jezebel on a bed of suffering for false teaching, having given her time to repent but she was unwilling. Tragic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously? You don't think reasonable Christians can disagree about this?

      Delete
    2. Problem with Henry's interpretation is that natural evils can, and often do, befall the righteous and unrighteous alike. Apart from special revelation, we can't justifiably conclude that a particular illness or tragedy is divine punishment. Sometimes that's the case, but in many situations, that's not the case.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, because God _always_ wants us as Christians to be out front there trying to figure out what horrible griefs that come to fellow Christians and their relatives might be a punishment for their sins. Sounds like an important comment to make to me./sarc

      Delete
    4. Likewise, many unbelievers lead long, healthy lives. So there's nothing approaching a one-to-one correspondence between holiness/orthodoxy and health or trouble-free lives, or between sin/heresy and illness or personal tragedy. In fact, that connection is made by health-and-weath charlatans.

      Delete
    5. Psalm 73 comes to mind, Steve. Asaph affirmed God's goodness but couldn't make sense of the wicked prospering and the righteous suffering. "Until, I entered the temple of the Lord". Whe he sought God's presence, it all made sense- though Asaph could never fully understand evil, but he could trust in the Lord who does see all ends, because he has ordained them. I dont agree with Becky's view on women in ministry, but it is a stretch to link that with her suffering. Doug and Becky are great examples of Christians enduring suffering and maintaining their faith.

      Delete
    6. So, now that Wayne Grudem has been diagnosed with Parkinsons, that means we can apply the same logic? Maybe he's being punished for his complementarianism? What rubbish! Both Dr. Grudem and Rebecca Groothuis are serious and faithful servants of Jesus, regardless of whether we agree with them or not on some specific issues. Having known the Groothuis's personally for many years, I can say that there there is nothing about them to suggest otherwise. I don't know Dr. Grudem (we have met, but only briefly), but I understand that he is a godly brother in Christ. The claim to know the mind of God in the illness of a specific brother or sister is beyond pretentious. It is truly appalling. Let us pray for the healing of these servants of the Lord.

      Delete
  2. Lydia's comments are flippant. She would rather Rebecca and her husband live in ignorance than make any attempt to ask whether such a tragedy is from God's hand.

    If a professing Christian leads God's masses of souls in rebellion against God's word through her writings, and comes under terrible suffering, any pastor worth their salt would counsel them to repent of their sin as a first step.

    What kind of cruel, unloving pastor would refuse to point out a most obvious cause of God's displeasure upon a person? Such a person does not love the flock, he hates them since he is more concerned for his own skin.

    Requiring omniscience or certainty is facile. In scripture, God routinely sends calamity and woe upon peoples in order that they may repent. Read your bible. Your approach denies that these people may infer that such calamities are 'God's megaphone in a deaf world', and thus your approach denies that such calamities should induce such people to repent.

    For the record, my heart went out to Douglas when I read the piece, and I prayed that he might be spared the same fate as his wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't get it, do you?

      She's not in any position to "repent." She can barely understand or talk. She has severe dementia.

      Now I suppose your next statement will be something like, oh, well, in that case, it's too late for her, but we should go tell Doug that he's heading for punishment from God if *he* doesn't repent of his egalitarianism.

      This is trollish.

      I'm a complementarian and think they are badly mistaken on this point, but there's a time for everything, and this ain't it.

      Delete
    2. I am curious. How does one determine whether a "tragedy is from God's hand"?

      Delete
    3. Henry:

      "She would rather Rebecca and her husband live in ignorance than make any attempt to ask whether such a tragedy is from God's hand."

      Ignorant of what? The objections to egalitarianism/evangelical feminism? If so, I'm sure they are well aware of those objections.

      ii) Or do you mean ignorance regarding the source of their tragedy? If so, how do you propose that sick people go about asking God if their personal tragedy is from his hand? Should they test God? Request a sign? Demand a sign? Ask God, then expect an audible voice from heaven?

      These are not facetious questions. What did you have in mind?

      "What kind of cruel, unloving pastor would refuse to point out a most obvious cause of God's displeasure upon a person?"

      It's very arrogant of you to be so cocksure when it comes to reading divine providence.

      "In scripture, God routinely sends calamity and woe upon peoples in order that they may repent. Read your bible."

      And the same Bible warns us not to presume that tragedy or illness is due to personal sin.

      "Your approach denies that these people may infer that such calamities are 'God's megaphone in a deaf world.'"

      That's because your inference is invalid. That isn't even probably the case. Absent revelation, the reason is inscrutable.

      "…and I prayed that he might be spared the same fate as his wife."

      You need to put your crystal ball in the attic.

      Delete
    4. Henry

      "For the record, my heart went out to Douglas when I read the piece, and I prayed that he might be spared the same fate as his wife."

      However, hasn't Doug supported his wife including helping her publish books on egalitarianism? If so, then Doug is at least equally to blame. Thus, according to Henry's logic, God should've afflicted him as much as he afflicted Becky.

      Perhaps Henry will counter that Doug seeing his wife like this is God's punishment against him. But that raises other thorny issues (e.g. Doug is in fact lovingly serving his wife throughout all this which could in part fall under arguments for soul-making theodicy).

      Delete
  3. "So there's nothing approaching a one-to-one correspondence between holiness/orthodoxy and health"

    Which is an argument nobody made.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Problem with Henry's interpretation is that natural evils can, and often do, befall the righteous"

    This is not a problem with my interpretation, but with Steve's ability to read charitably. When the righteous ask the same question of God (which they should) they and their pastors need not conclude the same thing as the wicked.

    We are so unaccustomed to the concept of God's earthly judgment of sinners and heretics, due to the absence of such preaching from the pulpit, that we get all bend out of shape when somebody dares make such a connection. Witness Piper and the lutheran episode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 

"This is not a problem with my interpretation, but with Steve's ability to read charitably. "

      Actually, the problem is with Henry's ability to read Doug's article charitably.

      "When the righteous ask the same question of God (which they should)…"

      What does that mean, exactly? Asking God if one's sickness is remedial punishment? Do you expect an audible voice for heaven to say yes or no?

      "…they and their pastors need not conclude the same thing as the wicked."

      Again, that misses the point. Some of the righteous suffer major illness and some don't. Some of the wicked suffer major illness and some don't. Being wicked or righteous is no indicator one way or the other.

      "We are so unaccustomed to the concept of God's earthly judgment of sinners and heretics, due to the absence of such preaching from the pulpit…"

      There's a big difference between making allowance for that possibility in any particular case, and presuming that to be the case. You are guilty of presumption.

      "…that we get all bend out of shape when somebody dares make such a connection."

      i) If anyone is all bent out of shape, that would be you.

      ii) I didn't deny that there's sometimes a connection. But since there is no reliable correlation, it is presumptuous for people like you to assume the worst. Absent revelation, you are in no position to infer that a sickness is divine chastisement for personal sin. That's a fallacious inference, given the lack of one-to-one correspondence.

      Delete
  5. Henry sounds like Job's "miserable comforters."

    Yet, among many other lessons, Job teaches us suffering isn't necessarily indexed on one living a "blameless and upright" life, or a life worshiping God in truth and without falsehood, for Job suffered and suffered grievously. If a person as true and righteous as Job could suffer, then (a fortiori) surely those less so than Job could suffer as well, no?

    I'd suggest Henry might wish to work through the relevant biblical passages on the topic. D.A. Carson's How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (2nd ed.) is a good guide with respect to these passages.

    On a related note, I haven't read it, but I've heard Second Forgetting: Remembering the Power of the Gospel during Alzheimer's Disease by Dr. Benjamin Mast is a helpful book as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John 9:1-3:

    "As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.'"

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a hard road to face.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Absent revelation, the reason is inscrutable."

    Among many biblical texts that could be referenced, consider Amos 4:6-11. Note the continual refrain after the sufferings God sends: 'yet you did not return to me'. Or see a similar theme in Revelation 9:20-21.

    What do these texts imply but that suffering *ought* to lead sinners to repentance? And consequently, sinners are not justified in writing it off as inscrutable.

    Would Steve's message to the masses spoken of in these texts be that they should *not* conclude that sin is a likely cause of their plight? Suffering should cause a man to consider his ways, whether the judgment be from God. That is a very natural question people tend to ask, and faithful saints should encourage the blind to ask it. It leads the person to assume a humble position before God, open to the possibility that they have sinned. This should especially be the case for those who have engaged in the singular wickedness of leading multitudes of saints astray through their misuse of scripture.

    There is a divinely intended redemptive purpose in suffering that comments here unwittingly undermine.

    "Do you expect an audible voice for heaven to say yes or no?"

    This is a disingenuous way of construing the guidance from God that almost all saints can testify to throughout their lives. You are as capable of spelling it out as well as I am.

    In the case of the suffering one who after seeking the Lord and counsel of others, is not aware of sin in their lives, they need not labour under the belief that the reason for this suffering is unrepentant sin.

    "Henry sounds like Job's "miserable comforters."

    Do you consider that the persons in question are in the category of Job, given the public knowledge of the false teaching in question? The Jezebel example in Revelation is a closer parallel, if you read the text (and no that is not intended to be a name-calling insult).

    "It's very arrogant of you to be so cocksure when it comes to reading divine providence."

    Note the wording of my original claim: Considering Rebecca has been a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood, I don't find it hard to believe that God's hand is against her in all this.

    I think you are being more cocksure about my motives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Henry

      "Do you consider that the persons in question are in the category of Job, given the public knowledge of the false teaching in question? The Jezebel example in Revelation is a closer parallel, if you read the text (and no that is not intended to be a name-calling insult)."

      In addition to what I've said above:

      1. Actually, that's a very point of contention. I'm a complementarian, but why assume egalitarianism is a "false teaching" more or less "parallel" to Jezebel in Revelation? For starters, here's what Rev. 2:20 says:

      "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols."

      Is egalitarianism "a closer parallel" to "seducing" God's people, to "practic[ing] sexual immorality," to participate in pagan feasts and ceremonies presumably associated with idolatory?

      2. Not to mention in 1 Kings Jezebel encouraged Israel to worship Baal, practice sorcery, and commit other immoralites.

      3. Plus, since you draw a parallel between Becky Groothuis and Jezebel, then presumably you're likewise drawing a parallel between Doug Groothuis and King Ahab.

      4. In short, how is egalitarianism "a closer parallel" to all this?

      5. Of course, there have been many other influential egalitarians in the past and present whom (as far as I can tell) God hasn't seen fit to punish in a like manner to how you've alleged God is punishing Becky Groothuis.

      In fact, someone like Roger Nicole is arguably far more theologically astute than Becky. Also, given Nicole taught at Gordon-Conwell and later Reformed Theological Seminary, given he helped found the Evangelical Theological Society as well as the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, given he served on Bible translation committees, etc., then he would've influenced many Christians. If any egalitarian deserves to be afflicted in this life as you claim God has done with Becky Groothuis, then why not Nicole?

      Delete
    2. Henry

      "Suffering should cause a man to consider his ways, whether the judgment be from God. That is a very natural question people tend to ask, and faithful saints should encourage the blind to ask it. It leads the person to assume a humble position before God, open to the possibility that they have sinned. This should especially be the case for those who have engaged in the singular wickedness of leading multitudes of saints astray through their misuse of scripture."

      1. This objection is misguided to say the least. According to Doug Groothuis, Becky has "primary progressive aphasia." Dementia. It's unlikely Becky will even be of sound enough mind to be able to "consider [her] ways, whether the judgment be from God."

      2. Also, say she is able to repent. If she does, will God cure her dementia? Reverse her neurodegeneration?

      Delete
    3. 3. If Becky is meant to serve as an example, then can we tell other egalitarians that they should expect to end up like Becky unless they repent (e.g. dementia)? However, if they do repent, then God will heal their dementia?

      Delete
    4. On the one hand there are atheists and heretics who lead long healthy lives, like Adolf Grünbaum (92-), Bertrand Russell (d. 97), W. V. O. Quine (d. 92), Martin Gardner (d. 95), Edward Teller (d. 95), Hans Bethe (d. 98), Charles Hartshorne (d. 103). 

      On the other hand, Westminster Divine George Gillespie died at 35. Must have harbored some secret vice. Eric Liddell died at 43 of brain cancer–clearly divine punishment for his dissolute ways. Robert Murray M'Cheyne died at 29–obviously a scoundrel. David Brainerd died at 29–must have been divine judgment. 

      Delete
    5. One of Henry's confusions is a failure to distinguish between individual divine judgment and collective divine judgment. In the nature of the case, collective judgments are indiscriminate. If God unleashes a pestilence on a community, those who become sick or die will be those with the least natural resistance to the contagion or those with the greatest contact, not those who are the most sinful. Collective judgments don't target sinners. Innocent and guilty alike will suffer.

      Delete
  9. I don't have time to respond to everyone, so have picked out only the bits that appear to me to be the more substantive arguments.

    >>"In addition to what I've said above"

    I don't see how your quoting John 9:1-3 undercuts anything I have said. I fully affirm that this can be the case. As I feel I have said several times now, I am not advocating a one-to-one correspondence between suffering and evil. And surprise, surprise, I believe the story of Job too! - he wasn't being punished for his sin.

    >>Is egalitarianism "a closer parallel" [to Jezebel]

    Than what? Job? Yes! And by the way, as my original comment indicates, I was referring to the Jezebel of Revelation, not of Ahab, which makes your next two points moot. The parallel was to point out the reason for Jezebel being cast on a bed of suffering was her false teaching. This is utterly dis-analogous to Job. Can you see how I might consider your designation of me as one of 'Job's miserable comforters' to be unpersuasive?

    Regarding Nicole, again, I don't and haven't claimed a one-to-one correspondence. Why do you keep thinking I have? I've merely noted that the occurrence of singular suffering following the practice of singular rebellion is very good reason to consider cause and effect. Who honestly wouldn't! Call it a case of complex-specified information if you will. It amazes me that professing Christians find this so objectionable. We prefer to take sides with the false-teacher and refuse to allow anybody to see any warning in how God deals with them. And in the name of sympathy. How backwards!

    And on Nicole, read this excellent eulogy here: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2011/04/elegy-my-dear-father-roger-nicole

    Now, would anyone care to respond to my scriptural argument? Instanced by Amos 4:6-11 and Revelation 9:20-21, to use just two examples.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hm, lots of emotional bluster here.

      Also, it sounds more like you're backtracking on your original claims.

      Anyway, I actually did deal with your point about Rev. 9:20-21, but you didn't respond to it. Not to mention it's perfectly reasonable to bring up Jezebel in 1 Kings because John in Revelation is obviously alluding to the same.

      What I said about Nicole already assumes he's in the wrong. The Bayly blog post doesn't change that. Yet you still haven't addressed the question I raised about Nicole, which is a relevant objection to your original claims.

      You act as if no one can grasp your point, which is hardly the case, but in any case that's hardly reading us "charitably."

      Delete
    2. Henry

      "Now, would anyone care to respond to my scriptural argument? Instanced by Amos 4:6-11 and Revelation 9:20-21, to use just two examples."

      1. What you've primarily done with these passages is use them to say there's a causal link between sin (e.g. egalitarianism in your view) and suffering (e.g. Becky's dementia), and as such contend sinners (like Becky and Doug Groothuis) should repent.

      However, one could agree in general that there may in some cases be a causal link between sin and suffering, but disagree this necessarily is the case with the Becky and/or Doug Groothuis.

      2. What's more, this assumes what you need to prove in the case at hand: that Becky's dementia is indeed a result of her alleged sin of egalitarianism. As I've said, that's the very point of contention.

      3. More broadly speaking, it's not as if you've carefully exegeted these passages to support your claims. Given this, why should others do more than what you've bothered to do?

      Delete
    3. >> Anyway, I actually did deal with your point about Rev. 9:20-21

      Where? I can only see that you have referred to Rev 2:20.

      >>What you've primarily done with these passages is use them to say there's a causal link between sin (e.g. egalitarianism in your view) and suffering

      Not correct. I do not believe you understand the reason I referred to those passages. That point was to undercut the argument of those who claim that the cause of suffering is necessarily inscrutable to the sinner, absent dramatic revelation from God and that therefore we should never make any inferences. Those passages demonstrate otherwise - God *expected* the sinners to make those inferences. They also demonstrate the redemptive potential intended by God in suffering, a point commentators here have unwittingly undermined. To be fair, I can't remember if it was you who made this argument or only Steven.

      >>this assumes what you need to prove in the case at hand

      I have not attempted to, and don't need to 'prove' that her dementia is indeed a result of her false teaching. I merely noted that first, I don't find it hard to believe that this is the case given the precedence in scripture and the singular rebellion she has helped lead. Second, that this should be a primary consideration in pastoral counselling (think also James and the elders, healing, and the man 'confessing his sin'). Third, I had a third point but it has slipped my mind.

      Delete
    4. Henry

      "Where? I can only see that you have referred to Rev 2:20."

      See here.

      "That point was to undercut the argument of those who claim that the cause of suffering is necessarily inscrutable to the sinner, absent dramatic revelation from God and that therefore we should never make any inferences."

      I presume you're referring to Lydia and Steve.

      Actually, here's what you originally said: "In scripture, God routinely sends calamity and woe upon peoples in order that they may repent. Read your bible. Your approach denies that these people may infer that such calamities are 'God's megaphone in a deaf world', and thus your approach denies that such calamities should induce such people to repent."

      That frames the context in which Lydia and Steve were responding to you.

      "Those passages demonstrate otherwise - God *expected* the sinners to make those inferences."

      Yet the question remains: why then draw the inference to Becky Groothuis?

      "They also demonstrate the redemptive potential intended by God in suffering, a point commentators here have unwittingly undermined."

      Again, that's not exactly reading people very "charitably." For example, I made a point about soul-making theodicy in reference to Doug Groothuis, which I believe actually undercuts your point.

      "I have not attempted to, and don't need to 'prove' that her dementia is indeed a result of her false teaching. I merely noted that first, I don't find it hard to believe that this is the case given the precedence in scripture and the singular rebellion she has helped lead."

      As a point of irony, you now say "I merely noted that first, I don't find it hard to believe that this is the case..." as if you hadn't originally made a stronger claim and/or as if this somehow lessens the burden of proof for you, yet when I use a word like "unlikely" you say "this sounds like a shaky basis on which to proceed on your course."

      "Second, that this should be a primary consideration in pastoral counselling (think also James and the elders, healing, and the man 'confessing his sin')."

      Actually, this would be pastorally insensitive. Highly insensitive. You're telling someone who has dementia that their dementia is quite likely the consequence of their sin of egalitarianism. And this after reading a recently published article their husband penned describing his own tremendous grief and suffering over his wife.

      However, you're free to email Doug Groothuis and tell him exactly what you think. His public email is DougGroothuis@gmail.com.

      Delete
    5. "Third, I had a third point but it has slipped my mind."

      Let's hope this isn't a form of early onset dementia due to your "sin" in this thread! :-)

      Delete
  10. >>On the other hand, Westminster Divine George Gillespie died at 35. Must have harbored some secret vice. Eric Liddell died at 43 of brain cancer–clearly divine punishment for his dissolute ways. Robert Murray M'Cheyne died at 29–obviously a scoundrel. David Brainerd died at 29–must have been divine judgment. "

    Steve, normally you engage more carefully with a person's argument. This is unworthy of your talents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the contrary, you're the one who doubled down by insisting on slipshod inferences. I'm citing obvious counterexamples. While we're on the subject, Linus Pauling (d. 93), Robert Mugabe (91-).

      Delete
    2. I still think you are missing my point. Why, in the instances you cite, would I infer that these persons singular suffering is due to their singular sin? They are not suffering. A key component of CSI is missing. You need 2 dots to connect, you are only presenting 1.

      Since I never claimed a one-to-one correspondence, or even a particular probability, your anecdotal counterexamples lack traction. My inference is retrospective, not predictive. Clearly from scripture God sometimes brings wicked men down to a dreadful end. Equally, sometimes He doesn't. That doesn't stop the inspired writers from drawing a connection between a mans wickedness and his terrible end in the instances that this occurs.

      Also, merely referencing a persons age is a very limited indicator of suffering.

      Delete
    3. Henry

      "My inference is retrospective, not predictive. Clearly from scripture God sometimes brings wicked men down to a dreadful end. Equally, sometimes He doesn't. That doesn't stop the inspired writers from drawing a connection between a mans wickedness and his terrible end in the instances that this occurs."

      Really? For example, here's something you said in an earlier comment: "In scripture, God routinely sends calamity and woe upon peoples in order that they may repent. Read your bible."

      If God is warning people (e.g. Becky and/or Doug Groothuis) to repent or else, then how is this "retrospective"? In fact, isn't God "predicti[ng]" "calamity and woe" in the lives of those who don't repent?

      Or if you're saying you don't know if this still occurs today, or it depends on the particular case at hand i.e. we can only know on case-by-case basis, then how do you know it applies to Becky and/or Doug Groothuis, since you obviously believe Becky has dementia due to her being "a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood"?

      Delete
    4. "Since I never claimed a one-to-one correspondence, or even a particular probability, your anecdotal counterexamples lack traction."

      You said: "I don't find it hard to believe that God's hand is against her in all this."

      "What kind of cruel, unloving pastor would refuse to point out a most obvious cause of God's displeasure upon a person?"

      So, yes, you implied a particular probability in her case.

      "That doesn't stop the inspired writers from drawing a connection between a mans wickedness and his terrible end in the instances that this occurs."

      That's because inspired writers are privy to kinds of information to which you are not.

      Delete
    5. Again, your counterexamples don't contain suffering, the very thing I am saying must be present to make such an inference. Also, when I talk of 'probability', I am referring to forward prediction which is something that has never been my argument - I never *predicted* God will inflict singular suffering on a life of singular wickedness. In fact I have clearly stated this cannot be predicted as God often does not.

      Rather, the inference is *retrospective* - after suffering has happened. I.e. singular rebellion combined with singular suffering are the instances I maintain that make it appear plausible that such judgement is from God. Why is this so hard to fathom?

      >>That's because inspired writers are privy to kinds of information to which you are not.

      Again, you have failed to engage with Amos 4:6-11 and Revelation 9:20-21. These texts undercut your point. Suffering is not inscrutable in the way you maintain.

      Delete
    6. Henry

      "Rather, the inference is *retrospective* - after suffering has happened. I.e. singular rebellion combined with singular suffering are the instances I maintain that make it appear plausible that such judgement is from God."

      So, as has been repeatedly asked, how do you know this applies to Becky Groothuis? What's your "very good reason" that you can "retrospectively" say Becky Groothuis' suffering including dementia is a judgment from God due to her promoting egalitarianism? Particularly when it doesn't appear to apply to Doug who supported his wife in her work, or other arguably more influential egalitarians (unless you think Doug having to see his wife like this is itself a judgment from God, though other arguments could just as well be brought to bear such as whether this is spiritually beneficial for him a la some sort of soul-making theodicy).

      Delete
    7. Henry

"Rather, the inference is *retrospective* - after suffering has happened. I.e. singular rebellion combined with singular suffering are the instances I maintain that make it appear plausible that such judgement is from God. Why is this so hard to fathom?"

      Because your inference is fallacious. Unless they probably suffer as punishment for sin, your assumption isn't even probably true.

      Since, moreover, there are many exceptions even if that's probably the case (which is disputed), it would be cruel and presumptuous to point fingers.

      BTW, "suffering" is extremely vague. All Christians suffer.

      "Again, you have failed to engage with Amos 4:6-11 and Revelation 9:20-21. These texts undercut your point. Suffering is not inscrutable in the way you maintain."

      i) You suffer from a mental bock. Naturally it isn't inscrutable when the reason for a particular case is divinely disclosed. That's precisely what you don't have in extrabiblical cases.

      ii) You fail to distinguish between individual and collective judgment. I discuss that above. So, yes, I engaged your prooftexts. Pay attention.

      Delete
    8. >>i) You suffer from a mental bock. Naturally it isn't inscrutable when the reason for a particular case is divinely disclosed. That's precisely what you don't have in extrabiblical cases.

      You have not read the texts carefully. They don't indicate the kind of divine disclosure you need. They show that in the there-and-then, the people God speaks about should have drawn the link between their suffering and God's displeasure. Their suffering for their sin *was* God's disclosure. They didn't get it spelled out in red letters "this suffering is for your manifest wickedness".

      Your distinction between individual and collective judgment is not persuasive, since it is far from evident that a community that receives calamity is composed of an equal mixture of righteous and wicked. If there is any weighting towards the wicked, the correlation still remains. In fact, the episode of Sodom and Gomorrah militates against this view. In that instance, God would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked.

      Delete
    9. And in any case, as I have said several times, a righteous person who undergoes calamity, is, by the nature of the case, in no position to draw the inference I am talking about - that it is due to their open rebellion. By the nature of the case (they are righteous) - it must be for another reason (cf. Job).

      The wicked, however, cannot have the same relief. They have good reason to suppose they *are* being judged for their sin. Even in a collective judgment that engulfs a wicked village along with a few righteous. The bible is chockfull of examples of the wicked being judged for their sin.

      Delete
    10. Henry

      "And in any case, as I have said several times, a righteous person who undergoes calamity, is, by the nature of the case, in no position to draw the inference I am talking about - that it is due to their open rebellion. By the nature of the case (they are righteous) - it must be for another reason (cf. Job). The wicked, however, cannot have the same relief. They have good reason to suppose they *are* being judged for their sin. Even in a collective judgment that engulfs a wicked village along with a few righteous. The bible is chockfull of examples of the wicked being judged for their sin."

      The obvious unargued assumption Henry makes is that thanks to her egalitarianism Becky is "wicked."

      Delete
    11. Henry

      "Your distinction between individual and collective judgment is not persuasive, since it is far from evident that a community that receives calamity is composed of an equal mixture of righteous and wicked."

      Steve never said there must be "an equal mixture." You have a bad habit of putting words into people's mouths.

      Delete
  11. >>It's unlikely Becky will even be of sound enough mind to be able to "consider [her] ways, whether the judgment be from God."

    "unlikely" - this sounds like a shaky basis on which to proceed on your course. And what of Doug?

    >>say she is able to repent. If she does, will God cure her dementia? Reverse her neurodegeneration?

    How would I know? You have the same bible as me, what do you think? In any case, that is not germane to my argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ""unlikely" - this sounds like a shaky basis on which to proceed on your course."

      How is "unlikely" "a shaky basis"? Physicians often speak in terms of likelihood and probabilities and the like.

      "And what of Doug?"

      And what of him? I raised some issues pertaining to him in light of what you've said.

      "How would I know? You have the same bible as me, what do you think? In any case, that is not germane to my argument."

      It is germane inasmuch as given what you've said it's a reasonable question to ask.

      Delete
    2. Henry:

      "The bible is chockfull of examples of the wicked being judged for their sin."

      The bible is chockfull of examples of the wicked prospering while the righteous suffer.

      There is no discernible correlation to outside observers.

      Delete
  12. Henry, you're not claiming a one-to-one correspondence. But you have claimed that singular suffering following a singular rebellion is "a very good reason" to consider the link to be causal. In this case, it's the dementia following the egalitarianism. Now, put aside the distinction between having a disease and manifesting symptoms, and which you're claiming must come after the 'rebellion' (since for all I know, Rebecca had the disease before she came out in favor of egalitarianism), here's a question: since there's no one-to-one mapping, the probability isn't 1, so what would you say that the cobditional probability is that a person suffers S given they've embraced and taught some false doctrine F? What is P(S|F)? Greater than or lower than .5? (Assume all else is evidentially the same.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't have time to respond to this volume of misunderstanding. I trust that if you read what I wrote more carefully, rockingwithhawking, you will see my points.

    Paul, I suspect your question may be a joke intending to mock me. If not, I'm sorry, and I'm afraid I don't have much light to shed upon it. My gut feeling is .75. But don't hold me to it. On another day I might say .8

    Perhaps see my earlier comments to Steven about predictive and retrospective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Henry

      "I don't have time to respond to this volume of misunderstanding. I trust that if you read what I wrote more carefully, rockingwithhawking, you will see my points."

      Of course, I could say the exact same thing to you.

      Anyway, people can read or re-read this thread to see whether Henry is maintaining the more reasonable (and pastorally caring) position when he claims Becky Groothuis' dementia is quite likely the result of her being "a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood."

      "My gut feeling is .75. But don't hold me to it. On another day I might say .8."

      Apparently Henry thinks there's a 75% or 80% conditional probability that Becky Groothuis' dementia is a result of her egalitarianism.

      Delete
    2. "My gut feeling is .75. But don't hold me to it. On another day I might say .8."

      You should report these to insurance companies! For example, among questions like: Do you smoke? How many alcoholic drinks do you have per week on average? Do you skydive? Do you ride a motorcycle?, we might also ask: Are you an egalitarian? For according to you, there's a much higher probability of coming down with brain damage cobditional on endorsing egalitarianism than there is conditional on your riding a motorcycle!

      Delete
    3. >>My gut feeling is .75. But don't hold me to it. On another day I might say .8

      That comment was intended to be humorous, by the way.

      Delete
    4. Henry

      "That comment was intended to be humorous, by the way."

      I'd say there's maybe only a 0.022 probability that this was meant in a humorous way. On anothe rday I might say 0.03. ;-)

      Delete
    5. Well Henry, you claimed to have "very good reason" to believe that a person's suffering subsequent to their endorsing a false doctrine is caused by thst endorsement. But if you think the probability that a given person suffers given that they've endorsed a false doctrine is low or inscrutable, just what do you mean that learning that a person endorsed also doctrine prior to their suffering gives you "good reason" to think the latter was caused by the former?

      Delete
    6. Paul, your comment is wrong-headed, you don't get it. Please read my above engagement with Steve.

      I don't mean causative in the sense you are taking it, as though there is some kind of mechanical link between singular sin and singular suffering. I am merely saying that *sometimes* God meets out singular suffering on singular wickedness, not only for the redemptive purpose I have already noted, but also as a sign to the onlooking world of God's displeasure. And in these instances, it is right for onlookers to take note.

      Also, if you maintain suffering is inscrutable, how do you answer Amos 4:6-11 and Revelation 9:20-21? Here God clearly expects that sinners understand that such suffering should is from God's hand and that they should have repented because of it.

      Delete
    7. Henry

      "I am merely saying that *sometimes* God meets out singular suffering on singular wickedness, not only for the redemptive purpose I have already noted, but also as a sign to the onlooking world of God's displeasure. And in these instances, it is right for onlookers to take note."

      No, that's not what you're "merely" doing. You're specifically applying this to Becky Groothuis. You're saying you have "very good reason" to believe Becky's suffering including dementia are a consequence of her advocacy of egalitarianism. The question remains: what's your "very good reason" to believe this is true in Becky's case?

      "Also, if you maintain suffering is inscrutable, how do you answer Amos 4:6-11 and Revelation 9:20-21? Here God clearly expects that sinners understand that such suffering should is from God's hand and that they should have repented because of it."

      In addition to what's already been said, even if we agree (ad arguendo) these two passages demonstrate God's ways are not always inscrutable, it doesn't mean they are never inscrutable. Let alone that they are not inscrutable when it comes to Becky Groothuis.

      Delete
  14. In summary, Henry has all the grace of a bull in a china shop:

    1. Henry made a coarse and crude claim he ultimately couldn't or wouldn't refine well enough let alone back up - i.e. that there's "very good reason" to believe Becky Groothuis' suffering including dementia is a result of her "false teaching" on men and women (egalitarianism). But what's Henry's "very good reason"? He doesn't ever say. And literally every single commenter in this thread (obviously apart from Henry) has offered arguments against Henry's position, which so far as I can tell Henry doesn't fundamentally address or otherwise even interact with in a significant way other than to tell us we "misunderstand" his position.

    2. Henry made a secondary claim - i.e. "any pastor worth their salt would counsel them to repent of their sin as a first step." However, this is a pastorally insensitive claim. A sweeping statement too. Henry is advocating pastors across the board telling professing Christians undergoing suffering that they ought to repent of their sin "as a first step." Imagine Henry approaching the Groothuises: "Sorry, Becky and Doug, that God punished Becky with dementia and everything else because she promoted the false teaching of egalitarianism and led God's people astray, just as Jezebel did. I'll pray for you guys, but Becky needs to repent and hope God has mercy on her soul. Have a good day!"

    3. As a friend points out, this isn't even the right time and place to discuss it. Henry is exploiting Becky's illness as a pretext to inveigh against egalitarianism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are parading your own misunderstanding of my argument, so confident that I have been refuted simply because I am outnumbered here. You have not even understood the point Amos 4 and Revelation 9 make, let alone countered it.

      >>Imagine Henry approaching the Groothuises... Becky needs to repent and hope God has mercy on her soul. Have a good day!

      How is this honest? You are simply trying to make me look foolish by putting a terse and happy-go-lucky construal of words in my mouth. Do you really think that is the only way a pastor can communicate to Becky or Doug that they should repent?

      >>Henry is exploiting Becky's illness as a pretext to inveigh against egalitarianism.

      For all your talk of inscrutability, you don't have much difficulty divining my motives.


      Delete
    2. Henry

      "You are parading your own misunderstanding of my argument"

      People can read or re-read everything that's been said in this thread and come to their own conclusions about your argument.

      "so confident that I have been refuted simply because I am outnumbered here."

      I never based what I said on sheer number. It's not as if arguments are decided by vote. Rather I explicitly said everyone here has offered arguments against your position which I don't see you've significantly engaged.

      Also, you're hardly reading others "charitably."

      "You have not even understood the point Amos 4 and Revelation 9 make, let alone countered it."

      So you keep saying, but not showing. Once again, people are free to read or re-read what you said and what I and others have said about the Scriptural arguments as well as other reasoned arguments.

      Besides, I've already pointed this out on more than a couple of occasions, so who knows why you're acting as if no one has engaged you here. I've even given you a direct link to my comment on Rev 9 above.

      "How is this honest? You are simply trying to make me look foolish by putting a terse and happy-go-lucky construal of words in my mouth."

      Yes, a foolish position will look foolish. As I've maintained, it'd be pastorally insensitive for you to tell Doug and Becky all this at this time. Imagine if they read your comments about them in this very thread.

      "Do you really think that is the only way a pastor can communicate to Becky or Doug that they should repent?"

      Of course, the fact that you even raised the question in the first place is itself a defeat for you. Again it evinces pastorally insensitivity.

      However, you're free to say how you would prefer to tell Becky and Doug Groothuis that there's "very good reason" to believe Becky's suffering is a result of her advocacy of egalitarianism, parallel to Jezebel, and that she ought to repent. Sadly, if you do so, you've missed the point.

      "For all your talk of inscrutability, you don't have much difficulty divining my motives."

      You're too easily confused. I don't "talk of inscrutability" except to correct you mistaking me for others. But here you are stumbling over the same thing again.

      Nevertheless, the fact that God's reasons are sometimes inscrutable to us doesn't mean your reasons are inscrutable to us. We're just judging you by what you've typed in this very thread.

      Delete
  15. It would have been far more prudent for Henry to have nuanced his position. He could've couched his statement about Becky Groothuis in a more subtle manner. He could've said something like:

    I don't know if what Becky is going through is a result of any sin in her life or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We can't read her heart and mind like God can. Nevertheless it may be spiritually beneficial for those suffering to undergo some self-introspection and see if there may be any sin in their lives. If not, then their suffering may not be related to any conscious sin. If they do find sin, it still doesn't necessarily mean their suffering is a direct result of God's judgment against their sin, but it might be. Either way, they can turn away from their sin, and turn back to God, and pray he restores them to himself as a loving father might restore his wayward child to himself.

    Instead, Henry has all the grace of a bull in a china shop, and blunders and blusters his way through an argument about there being a "very good reason" to believe Becky Groothuis' suffering (e.g. dementia) is God's "judgment" against her for her "false teaching," for "lead[ing] God's people astray," for "tampering with the word of God," that in all this Becky closely parallels Jezebel, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  16. rockingwithhawking,

    Your arguments are confused and untruthful and I do not wish to use up more time arguing with you. Your substantive questions have been answered, yet you are blind to the answers. I'm happy, along with you, to let the readers decide.

    You have, however, finally made an attempt to engage my actual argument from the texts I cited (at 2:55am - *after* you claimed at 2:49am you had already done so multiple times).

    You grant that these texts disprove the assertion that absent dramatic revelation, God's judgments are always inscrutable. Good. That admission has been a long time in coming. But you maintain that they still sometimes may be inscrutable. I believe the generality of the texts speak against this arbitrary escape. As well as the fact that it makes inscrutability absent revelation to be a matter of randomness, with regards to a link between singular sin and singular suffering. And to repeat, I have not, and do not need to argue in terms of certainties for my point to stand. Even if a person is only 70% convinced that his present suffering is due to his ongoing rebellion, this is enough for people to consider the link and say something, and enough to make him wake up and repent, if he is willing. Especially if the suffering is particularly hard to bear. I stand by my original statement: Considering Rebecca has been a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood, I don't find it hard to believe that God's hand is against her in all this.

    I will use you as a foil for two more thoughts:

    >>pastoral insensitivity

    It is revealing that so many presuppose 'sensitivity' equals to avoidance of difficult truth. What would we think of the doctor who refused to tell his patient that alcohol is a likely cause of his liver troubles in the name of 'pastoral sensitivity'?

    And yes, it is unhelpful to be a blunderbuss. But avoiding this error is not the same thing as failing to the likely need.

    >>using this as an opportunity to inveigh against egalitarianism

    Even if I were doing this, your pejorative use of the word 'inveigh' reveals how you view the dismantling of falsehood. You resent it, you don't realise it's seriousness and you desire to be soft with false teaching.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Henry

      "Your arguments are confused and untruthful"

      So you say, but don't show.

      "and I do not wish to use up more time arguing with you."

      That's your prerogative.

      "Your substantive questions have been answered, yet you are blind to the answers."

      So you say, but don't show.

      "I'm happy, along with you, to let the readers decide."

      Phew! A sigh of relief.

      "You have, however, finally made an attempt to engage my actual argument from the texts I cited (at 2:55am - *after* you claimed at 2:49am you had already done so multiple times)."

      Contrary to what you've said about me, see 11/09/2015 12:04 PM or 11/09/2015 2:52 PM. Both of these occur before these dates and times. Anyway, anyone can scroll up and see for themselves. Just read the comments in chronological order and see who's "confused and untruthful" here.

      "You grant that these texts disprove the assertion that absent dramatic revelation, God's judgments are always inscrutable. Good. That admission has been a long time in coming."

      Actually, I do no such thing. I never even made a comment about "dramatic" revelation. I never concluded "absent dramatic revelation, God's judgments are always inscrutable." But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

      By the way, this is evidence you're either "confused" or "untruthful" about me. Or both.

      "But you maintain that they still sometimes may be inscrutable. I believe the generality of the texts speak against this arbitrary escape."

      So you say, but don't show. How is saying God's ways may sometimes be inscrutable "arbitrary"?

      And how does "the generality of the texts speak against this"? Again, so you say, but don't show.

      "As well as the fact that it makes inscrutability absent revelation to be a matter of randomness, with regards to a link between singular sin and singular suffering."

      If it's true God's ways are inscrutable absent revelation, then how is this necessarily "a matter of randomness"? How does this logically follow?

      Again, so you keep saying, but you don't show. Assertions without arguments.

      Delete
    2. "And to repeat, I have not, and do not need to argue in terms of certainties for my point to stand. Even if a person is only 70% convinced that his present suffering is due to his ongoing rebellion, this is enough for people to consider the link and say something, and enough to make him wake up and repent, if he is willing. Especially if the suffering is particularly hard to bear. I stand by my original statement: Considering Rebecca has been a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood, I don't find it hard to believe that God's hand is against her in all this."

      So you say, but don't show.

      No one is calling you to apodictic certainty. Rather, you simply have to back up your point that there's "very good reason" to believe Becky Groothuis' suffering (e.g. dementia) is the result of her "false teaching." What's the "very good reason"? Pretty straightforward. Yet you've failed to do this.

      "I will use you as a foil for two more thoughts:"

      I'm happy to play Jeeves to your Bertie Wooster. :-)

      "It is revealing that so many presuppose 'sensitivity' equals to avoidance of difficult truth."

      Since nothing I've said indicates I presuppose this, you're cage raging against a strawman.

      "What would we think of the doctor who refused to tell his patient that alcohol is a likely cause of his liver troubles in the name of 'pastoral sensitivity'?"

      An argument from analogy minus the argument. What makes you think Becky's situation is analogous to this one? Once again, you say, but don't show.

      "Even if I were doing this, your pejorative use of the word 'inveigh' reveals how you view the dismantling of falsehood."

      This assumes you're actually "dismantling" "falsehood" by alleging Becky Groothuis' suffering is due to God punishing her for her egalitarianism.

      Also, you yourself don't offer any arguments in this thread against egalitarianism. Instead, you're predominantly attacking Becky Groothuis, comparing her to Jezebel, etc.

      "You resent it, you don't realise it's seriousness and you desire to be soft with false teaching."

      As Ray asked you above, and which you never answered: "Seriously? You don't think reasonable Christians can disagree about this [egalitarianism vs. complementarianism]?"

      Delete
    3. Henry

"You grant that these texts disprove the assertion that absent dramatic revelation, God's judgments are always inscrutable. Good. That admission has been a long time in coming."

      I, for one, don't grant that at all.

      "And to repeat, I have not, and do not need to argue in terms of certainties for my point to stand."

      Henry doesn't even have probabilities.

      "Even if a person is only 70% convinced that his present suffering is due to his ongoing rebellion…"

      That's utterly confused. The question at issue isn't the percentage of psychological certitude, but the validity of Henry's inductive inference.

      "…this is enough for people to consider the link and say something, and enough to make him wake up and repent, if he is willing."

      Henry is addicted to logical fallacies.

      Delete
    4. >>I, for one, don't grant that at all.

      Bald assertion is no substitute for actually engaging with the texts I cited. Amos 4, Revelation 9, it's still there. I assume you are not depending on rockingwithhawkings feeble attempt.

      >>The question at issue isn't the percentage of psychological certitude, but the validity of Henry's inductive inference.

      Agreed. You have yet to show how it is an invalid inference. I have already explained why your counterexamples are irrelevant to the point:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/a-philosophers-unexpected-journey.html?showComment=1447138469567#c5006958516570343695

      Since you like trading anecdotal counterexamples, here is an anecdotal aside. Even Chris Hitchens, dying of throat cancer, saw it necessary to counter the belief that he knew many might conclude - that his throat cancer was evidence of God's displeasure upon his singular public ridicule of Christianity with his voice. He implicitly considered it an obvious enough inference that some would draw, such that he needed to counter it. (Though incidental to my point, he countered that his throat cancer was hereditary - his father had it. He clearly felt that lessened the force of the argument.)

      Your prompt dismissal of the common man inferring God's displeasure when they see (in others or their own lives) significant suffering and misfortune attending clear wickedness, flies in the face of how men actually think, and also, how God expects men to think, vis-a-vis, Amos 4 and Revelation 9.

      Delete
    5. Henry

      "Bald assertion is no substitute for actually engaging with the texts I cited."

      Baldly citing texts as Henry has done is no substitute for actually exegeting texts, making reasoned argumentation based on Scripture, etc.

      "Amos 4, Revelation 9, it's still there."

      I've already addressed Rev 9 above.

      I've actually already discussed Amos 4 as well, but Henry apparently doesn't know how to read. So I'll try to collate what I've said as well as what others have said about Amos 4:6-11:

      1. As Paul Manata pointed out, this assumes Becky's dementia came after her egalitarianism. But what if her egalitarianism preceded her dementia?

      2. As I've already pointed out on more than one occasion, Becky isn't in a state of mind to repent. So it would be futile for God to call her to repentance.

      3. As I've already pointed out, in Amos, if Israel repented, then the natural calamities should cease, right? By Henry's logic, if Becky repented, then her dementia should cease, right? God will reverse her neurodegenerative disease? As Steve has mentioned, this seems awfully similar to what health and wealth prosperity preachers preach.

      4. As Steve has pointed out, Amos is not inscrutable because God has revealed it to us. But God hasn't revealed to us why Becky is suffering. Yet Henry acts as if it's all but a foregone conclusion.

      5. As Steve has pointed out, Henry fails to distinguish between collective and individual divine judgment. God's judgment against Israel in Amos would have been a collective judgment, where both innocent and guilty suffer. This is hardly the case with an individual like Becky.

      "I assume you are not depending on rockingwithhawkings feeble attempt."

      Notice Henry substitutes adjectives for arguments. Pejoratives for premises, propositions, etc. That's often what happens when one is losing the argument.

      "Even Chris Hitchens, dying of throat cancer, saw it necessary to counter the belief that he knew many might conclude - that his throat cancer was evidence of God's displeasure upon his singular public ridicule of Christianity with his voice. He implicitly considered it an obvious enough inference that some would draw, such that he needed to counter it."

      Now Henry is taking cues from a militant atheist? Wow.

      At the risk of stating the obvious, Becky Groothuis is not Christopher Hitchens. The two are not interchangeable. Even if it were true God judged Hitchens with throat cancer due to his militant atheism, it's not necessarily true God is judging Becky with dementia due to her egalitarianism.

      Delete
  17. Since you are now approaching some substance instead of bluster, I'll engage:

    >>I've actually already discussed Amos 4 as well, but Henry apparently doesn't know how to read. So I'll try to collate what I've said as well as what others have said about Amos 4:6-11: 1. As Paul Manata pointed out, this assumes Becky's dementia came after her egalitarianism. But what if her egalitarianism preceded her dementia?

    You have written the last sentence the wrong way round. Given what we know from the article of when the symptoms started, that is highly unlikely. And given what we know of the time it takes to become a newbie feminist to contributing scholarly works to the subject, it is even more unlikely.

    >> 2. As I've already pointed out on more than one occasion, Becky isn't in a state of mind to repent. So it would be futile for God to call her to repentance.

    You're quite sure? Previously you said 'unlikely', now you seem certain. You are willing to assume it is futile to help someone, when in actual fact there may be a chance it is not futile? I have actually already made this point, but you missed it.

    >>3. As I've already pointed out, in Amos, if Israel repented, then the natural calamities should cease, right?

    Not granted - prove it.

    >>By Henry's logic, if Becky repented, then her dementia should cease, right? God will reverse her neurodegenerative disease? As Steve has mentioned, this seems awfully similar to what health and wealth prosperity preachers preach.

    You hopelessly contradict yourself. Is Amos also like the health and wealth preachers then?

    >>4. As Steve has pointed out, Amos is not inscrutable because God has revealed it to us. But God hasn't revealed to us why Becky is suffering. Yet Henry acts as if it's all but a foregone conclusion.

    I've already responded to Steve on that count, following his comment. Read the text carefully, and you will see that it says nothing of God giving any special revelation concerning the cause of their suffering. Their suffering *was* the disclosure. Their suffering *was* the intended wake up call they got against their sin.

    >>5. As Steve has pointed out, Henry fails to distinguish between collective and individual divine judgment. God's judgment against Israel in Amos would have been a collective judgment, where both innocent and guilty suffer.

    And yet even then, with (according to you) both guilty and righteous, it was *not* inscrutable to them (according to the text). So to finish off you have presented an argument in my favour. If even a collective calamity (of the wicked and righteous) deserved to be understood by the wicked recipients, how much more so in the case of an individual calamity, where no righteous are involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Bald assertion is no substitute for actually engaging with the texts I cited. Amos 4, Revelation 9, it's still there."

      You are too inattentive to notice that I have in fact done that.

      "I've already responded to Steve on that count, following his comment. Read the text carefully, and you will see that it says nothing of God giving any special revelation concerning the cause of their suffering. Their suffering *was* the disclosure. Their suffering *was* the intended wake up call they got against their sin."

      Henry is hopelessly obtuse. He still hasn't figured out that in the nature of the case, he can't prooftext his claims. Biblical examples constitute an inspired theological interpretation of particular historical events.

      That's precisely what Henry doesn't have to go by in extrabiblical cases. He doesn't have that inspired theological interpretation for extrabiblical cases. And as Scripture also indicates, ill-fortune is not necessarily or even probably a sign of divine displeasure.

      Delete
    2. Henry

      "Since you are now approaching some substance instead of bluster, I'll engage:"

      Awfully kind of you, guv'nor, to deign to engage riff raff like me! :-)

      "Given what we know from the article of when the symptoms started, that is highly unlikely."

      Are you medically trained?

      "And given what we know of the time it takes to become a newbie feminist to contributing scholarly works to the subject, it is even more unlikely."

      What makes your opinion about this any better than the average person's?

      "You're quite sure? Previously you said 'unlikely', now you seem certain."

      An ironic statement coming from someone who talks in gut feelings and probabilities, then tries to pass it off as humor.

      "You are willing to assume it is futile to help someone, when in actual fact there may be a chance it is not futile?

      Alas, you need to brush up on basic reading comprehension. I never said it would be futile to help someone. I said it would be futile for God to call Becky to repentance given her state of mind.

      "I have actually already made this point, but you missed it."

      Well, since you were the one who actually misconstrued what I wrote, I suppose the shoe is on the other foot now. How embarrassing for you! :-(

      "Not granted - prove it."

      I'm afraid one can't prove it because it's based on your logic, which I grant is illogical.

      "You hopelessly contradict yourself. Is Amos also like the health and wealth preachers then?"

      Yes, according to what you've said about Becky and her suffering, that would at least make some sense.

      "you will see that it says nothing of God giving any special revelation concerning the cause of their suffering."

      At the risk of stating the obvious, the book of Amos is itself special revelation.

      "Their suffering *was* the disclosure. Their suffering *was* the intended wake up call they got against their sin."

      And how do we know this? Because God revealed this to us in Amos.

      However, this isn't the case with Becky Groothuis. God didn't reveal in Scripture why he afflicted Becky in the manner in which he afflicted her (e.g. dementia). Given this, you're attempting to make an illicit inference from Amos to Becky.

      "And yet even then, with (according to you) both guilty and righteous, it was *not* inscrutable to them (according to the text)."

      Yawn. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if saying something enough times makes it true. See what I've written above.

      "So to finish off you have presented an argument in my favour."

      And then you woke up, amirite? ;-)

      "If even a collective calamity (of the wicked and righteous) deserved to be understood by the wicked recipients, how much more so in the case of an individual calamity, where no righteous are involved."

      This assumes Becky is not "righteous." But that's an assumption you haven't demonstrated.

      In fact, it's another example of you jumping to conclusions. What makes you think egalitarianism (even if mistaken) is a heretical doctrine on par with Israel's idolatry, sexual immoralities, etc., as we see in Amos? What makes you think Becky is a false teacher comparable to Jezebel?

      In short, Henry: often mistaken, but never uncertain! :-)

      Delete
  18. Illness and death aren't necessarily punishment for a specific sin:

    1. We've already brought up the man born blind in John 9:1-3.

    2. There's also Gal 4:13: "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first." Paul may not have come to preach to the gospel in Galatia had it not been for his "bodily ailment."

    3. Timothy had "frequent ailments" (1 Tim 5:23).

    4. Trophimus "was ill, at Miletus" (2 Tim 4:20).

    5. In the OT, 2 Kings 20:1 states: "In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, 'Thus says the Lord, "Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover."'"

    In short, none of these appear to be associated with any specific sin. If anything, it's explicitly said there is no specific association with sin. For example: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (Jn 9:3).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve writes:

    >>Henry is hopelessly obtuse. He still hasn't figured out that in the nature of the case, he can't prooftext his claims. Biblical examples constitute an inspired theological interpretation of particular historical events.

    I am astonished that such a clever man as you is actually saying this! Even rockingwithhawking finally understood my point:

    I am *not* appealing to a random after-the-fact biblical pronouncement that such-and-such a suffering was for such-and-such sin. Obviously that would undercut my point!

    Rather, the specific examples I gave show persons who *at the time of their suffering* had no divine interpretation given. Thus, according to you *they* should have considered it inscrutable *until* the divine reason behind it (their sin) was revealed.

    However, this is exactly what we do not see. Rather, in speaking to them, God chastises them for *not* having repented *upon experiencing those sufferings* - this is *before* they heard God's divine pronouncement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Henry

      "I am astonished that such a clever man as you is actually saying this!"

      You can act gobsmacked, but Steve's prooftexting point about you is completely valid.

      "Even rockingwithhawking finally understood my point:"

      There's a pretty important difference between understanding your point and agreeing with it.

      "I am *not* appealing to a random after-the-fact biblical pronouncement that such-and-such a suffering was for such-and-such sin. Obviously that would undercut my point!"

      Chin up! Don't sell yourself short. After all, you've already made a litany of "obvious" illogical statements in this very thread, so no good reason to expect you can't or won't do the same again. :-)

      "Rather, the specific examples I gave show persons who *at the time of their suffering* had no divine interpretation given."

      So you believe God did not send prophets to his people? You know, prophets like, say, Amos? Amos who even had to travel from Judah in the south all the way to the northern kingdom?

      "Thus, according to you *they* should have considered it inscrutable *until* the divine reason behind it (their sin) was revealed. However, this is exactly what we do not see. Rather, in speaking to them, God chastises them for *not* having repented *upon experiencing those sufferings* - this is *before* they heard God's divine pronouncement."

      Since your premise is unfounded, how does the rest of what you say even make a single dent in Steve's argument?

      Of course, the bigger issue is the fact that you don't know how to use logic. How does any of this logically follow from what Steve has said? You don't connect the dots. You don't spell out what you mean. You make assertions without arguing for your assertions. That's shoddy work. Or sheer stupidity. Or both.

      Delete
    2. Henry, I responded to you latest confusion, which you repeat on my "Divine Chastisement" post, there.

      Delete