Benedict XVI was recently quoted as saying:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality," according to an English translation of the book obtained by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_POPE_CONDOMS?SITE=WCNC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Assuming the quotes are accurate, I find his illustration a bit puzzling. What does the pope think are the situations when a male prostitute would even have occasion use a condom? Now I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t bothered to study this issue, but just offhand, I assume male prostitution involves activities like oral sex and anal sex. Concerning the former, does the pope think condoms are used when performing fellatio?
In the case of anal sex, either the john is the active party and the prostitute is the passive party, or vice versa. Only the active party would even have occasion to use a condom. If the prostitute is the passive party, he can’t make demands on the john. He is there to service the john, for a price.
At most, I suppose the use of a condom would only make sense in case the (male) prostitute is the active party. But if the prostitute donned a condom in that particular case, it only be to either (i) protect himself from infection or (ii) protect the john from infection if the john demanded it.
Offhand, I don’t see any permutation in which a male prostitute would voluntarily wear a condom for the benefit of the john.
Of course, it would be nice if we could avoid the sordid details, but since this is the pope’s chosen illustration, and since the relevance of condom use in this situation happens to turn on the gritty details, that’s unavoidable if we hope to make sense of his statement. Unfortunately, parse it however I may, it doesn’t make much sense. So I wonder if Benedict XVI knows what he is talking about. Has he even thought this through?
However, given my own admitted ignorance of the subject, it’s quite possible that I’m overlooking some subtle nuance.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Popedom on condom
Benedict XVI was recently quoted as saying:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality," according to an English translation of the book obtained by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_POPE_CONDOMS?SITE=WCNC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Assuming the quotes are accurate, his statement is odd in several respects. What makes him think male prostitutes use condoms? Or is that just hypothetical?
More to the point is the motive which he assigns to the male prostitute. I assume a male prostitute would only wear a condom for one of two reasons: (i) to lessen the risk of infecting himself, not the john; (ii) if the john demands it, as a condition of payment.
I don’t assume a male prostitute would wear a condom out of consideration for the john. Prostitution is a degraded business transaction.
What the pope’s answer seems to reveal is his gaping ignorance of human nature. His gaping ignorance of real world psychology.
That doesn’t surprise me. Except for his compulsory stint in the Hitler Youth, he’s led a socially sheltered life. And he had precious little pastoral experience.
Here is the head of the world’s largest ostensibly Christian denomination, a man 83 years old, yet he seems to lack a basic understanding of what motivates sinners.
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality," according to an English translation of the book obtained by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_POPE_CONDOMS?SITE=WCNC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Assuming the quotes are accurate, his statement is odd in several respects. What makes him think male prostitutes use condoms? Or is that just hypothetical?
More to the point is the motive which he assigns to the male prostitute. I assume a male prostitute would only wear a condom for one of two reasons: (i) to lessen the risk of infecting himself, not the john; (ii) if the john demands it, as a condition of payment.
I don’t assume a male prostitute would wear a condom out of consideration for the john. Prostitution is a degraded business transaction.
What the pope’s answer seems to reveal is his gaping ignorance of human nature. His gaping ignorance of real world psychology.
That doesn’t surprise me. Except for his compulsory stint in the Hitler Youth, he’s led a socially sheltered life. And he had precious little pastoral experience.
Here is the head of the world’s largest ostensibly Christian denomination, a man 83 years old, yet he seems to lack a basic understanding of what motivates sinners.
Scholarship On The Empty Tomb
"Habermas claims that at least two out of three scholars (and maybe more) writing on the empty tomb since 1975 grant its historicity with a view toward the resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they either hold or are open to the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for why the tomb was empty. Habermas's moderate-to-strong majority does not include those who grant the historicity of the empty tomb while explaining it naturally. From my research, for this category I am thinking of scholars such as Allison, Bostock, Carnley, Ehrman, Fisher, Grant and Vermes, all of whom grant the historicity of the empty tomb while doubting that its emptiness resulted from Jesus' bodily resurrection....Waterman's (2006) published dissertation on the empty tomb tradition in Mark comments: 'Not a few, but rather a majority, of contemporary scholars believe that there is some historical kernel in the empty tomb tradition' (192-193)." (Michael Licona, The Resurrection Of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010], pp. 461-462, n. 606 on p. 461)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The road to Rome
Why do some Evangelicals convert (or revert) to Rome? Why are they deaf to the counterarguments?
In my observation, the most common reason is that converts are looking for something, and Rome offers them what they are looking for. (Or so it seems.)
They commence with a vague idea of what they want, then they shop around until they find it. And that’s why they are deaf to counterarguments. It doesn’t matter how solid the counterargument: if it’s not what they were looking for, it has no impact.
Converts to Rome flatter themselves into imagining that they have humbly submitted to God, but in reality they wind up in Rome because they find in Rome what they were searching for when they started out. Just like, if you have a hankering for ice cream, you will keep on driving until you “discover” a Baskin-Robbins. Your desire selects for your destination. The direction of the journey was a foregone conclusion. The quest ends right where it began. So the far-flung pilgrimage moves in a tight circle by stopping where it started. Their arrival is a grand anticlimax.
If you ask certain questions, then the type of question selects for the type of answer. Indeed, you only have ears for answers that answer your questions.
Of course, answers are only right answers to the right questions. Converts to Rome stop when they find the answers they sought. Unfortunately, they don’t stop to ask themselves if they were asking the right questions. They are easily satisfied with Rome’s answers because they are self-satisfied with their own questions. It’s not about finding the right answers; rather, it’s about finding answers that answer the questions of the questioner.
If your kitchen catches on fire, you can ask your wife when Lost comes on TV tonight, and she might give you the correct answer. Yet that’s not the most pertinent question to pose when your kitchen is on fire. A better question would be, “Where’s the fire extinguisher?”
In my observation, the most common reason is that converts are looking for something, and Rome offers them what they are looking for. (Or so it seems.)
They commence with a vague idea of what they want, then they shop around until they find it. And that’s why they are deaf to counterarguments. It doesn’t matter how solid the counterargument: if it’s not what they were looking for, it has no impact.
Converts to Rome flatter themselves into imagining that they have humbly submitted to God, but in reality they wind up in Rome because they find in Rome what they were searching for when they started out. Just like, if you have a hankering for ice cream, you will keep on driving until you “discover” a Baskin-Robbins. Your desire selects for your destination. The direction of the journey was a foregone conclusion. The quest ends right where it began. So the far-flung pilgrimage moves in a tight circle by stopping where it started. Their arrival is a grand anticlimax.
If you ask certain questions, then the type of question selects for the type of answer. Indeed, you only have ears for answers that answer your questions.
Of course, answers are only right answers to the right questions. Converts to Rome stop when they find the answers they sought. Unfortunately, they don’t stop to ask themselves if they were asking the right questions. They are easily satisfied with Rome’s answers because they are self-satisfied with their own questions. It’s not about finding the right answers; rather, it’s about finding answers that answer the questions of the questioner.
If your kitchen catches on fire, you can ask your wife when Lost comes on TV tonight, and she might give you the correct answer. Yet that’s not the most pertinent question to pose when your kitchen is on fire. A better question would be, “Where’s the fire extinguisher?”
Some Things Speak For Themselves
A special message for Nick:
Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that the use of condoms can be justified in some cases, such as for male prostitutes seeking to prevent the spread of HIV.Really, some things need no commentary.
(source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/20/pope-condom-use-justified-cases)
Glorified tuna salad
According to papist Scott Windsor:
Where I may have used SOME secondary sources, it is in SUPPORT of primary source documentation.
And what passes for “primary source documentation” by Windsor’s yardstick? Here’s a revealing example:
I've supported the testimony of Early Church Fathers with modern scientific evidence. The Early Church testimony is that St. Peter was crucified in Rome, upside down - and the bones found, according to the scientific evidence I provided earlier, supports the testimony of those Fathers. Mr. Hays statement of this being mere legend is summarily dismissed.
Okay, let’s looks at the primary source documentation for that claim. To my knowledge, our earliest primary source of information for the tale of Peter’s upside down crucifixion comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter. Here’s a sample:
And the brethren repented and entreated Peter to fight against Simon: (who said that he was the power of God, and lodged in the house of Marcellus a senator, whom he had convinced by his charms).
And without delay Peter went quickly out of the synagogue (assembly) and went unto the house of Marcellus, where Simon lodged: and much people followed him..And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed.
But Simon within the house said thus to the dog: Tell Peter that I am not within. Whom the dog answered in the presence of Marcellus: Thou exceeding wicked and shameless one, enemy of all that live and believe on Christ Jesus, here is a dumb animal sent unto thee which hath received a human voice to confound thee and show thee to be a deceiver and a liar. Hast thou taken thought so long, to say at last: 'Tell him that I am not within?' Art thou not ashamed to utter thy feeble and useless words against Peter the minister and apostle of Christ, as if thou couldst hide thee from him that hath commanded me to speak against thee to thy face: and that not for thy sake but for theirs whom thou wast deceiving and sending unto destruction? Cursed therefore shalt thou be, thou enemy and corrupter of the way of the truth of Christ, who shall prove by fire that dieth not and in outer darkness, thine iniquities that thou hast committed. And having thus said, the dog went forth and the people followed him, leaving Simon alone. And the dog came unto Peter as he sat with the multitude that was come to see Peter's face, and the dog related what he had done unto Simon. And thus spake the dog unto the angel and apostle of the true God: Peter, thou wilt have a great contest with the enemy of Christ and his servants, and many that have been deceived by him shalt thou turn unto the faith; wherefore thou shalt receive from God the reward of thy work. And when the dog had said this he fell down at the apostle Peter's feet and gave up the ghost.
And Peter turned and saw a herring (sardine) hung in a window, and took it and said to the people: If ye now see this swimming in the water like a fish, will ye be able to believe in him whom I preach? And they said with one voice: Verily we will believe thee. Then he said -now there was a bath for swimming at hand: In thy name, O Jesu Christ, forasmuch as hitherto it is not believed in, in the sight of all these live and swim like a fish. And he cast the herring into the bath, and it lived and began to swim. And all the people saw the fish swimming, and it did not so at that hour only, lest it should be said that it was a delusion (phantasm), but he made it to swim for a long time, so that they brought much people from all quarters and showed them the herring that was made a living fish, so that certain of the people even cast bread to it; and they saw that it was whole.
And when it was told Peter that Simon had said this, Peter sent unto him a woman which had a sucking child, saying to her: Go down quickly, and thou wilt find one that seeketh me. For thee there is no need that thou answer him at all, but keep silence and hear what the child whom thou holdest shall say unto him. The woman therefore went down. Now the child whom she suckled was seven months old; and it received a man's voice and said unto Simon: O thou abhorred of God and men, and destruction of truth, and evil seed of all corruption, O fruit by nature unprofitable! but only for a short and little season shalt thou be seen, and thereafter eternal punishment is laid up for thee. Thou son of a shameless father, that never puttest forth thy roots for good but for poison, faithless generation void of all hope! thou wast not confounded when a dog reproved thee; I a child am compelled of God to speak, and not even now art thou ashamed.
And already on the morrow a great multitude assembled at the Sacred Way to see him flying. And Peter came unto the place, having seen a vision (or, to see the sight), that he might convict him in this also; for when Simon entered into Rome, he amazed the multitudes by flying: but Peter that convicted him was then not yet living at Rome: which city he thus deceived by illusion, so that some were carried away by him (amazed at him).
And as he went forth of the city, he saw the Lord entering into Rome. And when he saw him, he said: Lord, whither goest thou thus (or here)? And the Lord said unto him: I go into Rome to be crucified. And Peter said unto him: Lord, art thou (being) crucified again? He said unto him: Yea, Peter, I am (being) crucified again. And Peter came to himself: and having beheld the Lord ascending up into heaven, he returned to Rome, rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, for that he said: I am being crucified: the which was about to befall Peter.
I beseech you the executioners, crucify me thus, with the head downward and not otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear. And when they had hanged him up after the manner he desired, he began again to say: Ye men unto whom it belongeth to hear, hearken to that which I shall declare unto you at this especial time as I hang here. Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell (was borne) head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down -who also cast his first state down upon the earth- established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation (Gk. vocation) wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom. This thought, therefore, have I declared unto you; and the figure wherein ye now see me hanging is the representation of that man that first came unto birth.
And Marcellus not asking leave of any, for it was not possible, when he saw that Peter had given up the ghost, took him down from the cross with his own hands and washed him in milk and wine: and cut fine seven minae of mastic, and of myrrh and aloes and indian leaf other fifty, and perfumed (embalmed) his body and filled a coffin of marble of great price with Attic honey and laid it in his own tomb.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html
This is the rock solid foundation on which Catholics like Windsor build their faith.
Where I may have used SOME secondary sources, it is in SUPPORT of primary source documentation.
And what passes for “primary source documentation” by Windsor’s yardstick? Here’s a revealing example:
I've supported the testimony of Early Church Fathers with modern scientific evidence. The Early Church testimony is that St. Peter was crucified in Rome, upside down - and the bones found, according to the scientific evidence I provided earlier, supports the testimony of those Fathers. Mr. Hays statement of this being mere legend is summarily dismissed.
Okay, let’s looks at the primary source documentation for that claim. To my knowledge, our earliest primary source of information for the tale of Peter’s upside down crucifixion comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter. Here’s a sample:
And the brethren repented and entreated Peter to fight against Simon: (who said that he was the power of God, and lodged in the house of Marcellus a senator, whom he had convinced by his charms).
And without delay Peter went quickly out of the synagogue (assembly) and went unto the house of Marcellus, where Simon lodged: and much people followed him..And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed.
But Simon within the house said thus to the dog: Tell Peter that I am not within. Whom the dog answered in the presence of Marcellus: Thou exceeding wicked and shameless one, enemy of all that live and believe on Christ Jesus, here is a dumb animal sent unto thee which hath received a human voice to confound thee and show thee to be a deceiver and a liar. Hast thou taken thought so long, to say at last: 'Tell him that I am not within?' Art thou not ashamed to utter thy feeble and useless words against Peter the minister and apostle of Christ, as if thou couldst hide thee from him that hath commanded me to speak against thee to thy face: and that not for thy sake but for theirs whom thou wast deceiving and sending unto destruction? Cursed therefore shalt thou be, thou enemy and corrupter of the way of the truth of Christ, who shall prove by fire that dieth not and in outer darkness, thine iniquities that thou hast committed. And having thus said, the dog went forth and the people followed him, leaving Simon alone. And the dog came unto Peter as he sat with the multitude that was come to see Peter's face, and the dog related what he had done unto Simon. And thus spake the dog unto the angel and apostle of the true God: Peter, thou wilt have a great contest with the enemy of Christ and his servants, and many that have been deceived by him shalt thou turn unto the faith; wherefore thou shalt receive from God the reward of thy work. And when the dog had said this he fell down at the apostle Peter's feet and gave up the ghost.
And Peter turned and saw a herring (sardine) hung in a window, and took it and said to the people: If ye now see this swimming in the water like a fish, will ye be able to believe in him whom I preach? And they said with one voice: Verily we will believe thee. Then he said -now there was a bath for swimming at hand: In thy name, O Jesu Christ, forasmuch as hitherto it is not believed in, in the sight of all these live and swim like a fish. And he cast the herring into the bath, and it lived and began to swim. And all the people saw the fish swimming, and it did not so at that hour only, lest it should be said that it was a delusion (phantasm), but he made it to swim for a long time, so that they brought much people from all quarters and showed them the herring that was made a living fish, so that certain of the people even cast bread to it; and they saw that it was whole.
And when it was told Peter that Simon had said this, Peter sent unto him a woman which had a sucking child, saying to her: Go down quickly, and thou wilt find one that seeketh me. For thee there is no need that thou answer him at all, but keep silence and hear what the child whom thou holdest shall say unto him. The woman therefore went down. Now the child whom she suckled was seven months old; and it received a man's voice and said unto Simon: O thou abhorred of God and men, and destruction of truth, and evil seed of all corruption, O fruit by nature unprofitable! but only for a short and little season shalt thou be seen, and thereafter eternal punishment is laid up for thee. Thou son of a shameless father, that never puttest forth thy roots for good but for poison, faithless generation void of all hope! thou wast not confounded when a dog reproved thee; I a child am compelled of God to speak, and not even now art thou ashamed.
And already on the morrow a great multitude assembled at the Sacred Way to see him flying. And Peter came unto the place, having seen a vision (or, to see the sight), that he might convict him in this also; for when Simon entered into Rome, he amazed the multitudes by flying: but Peter that convicted him was then not yet living at Rome: which city he thus deceived by illusion, so that some were carried away by him (amazed at him).
And as he went forth of the city, he saw the Lord entering into Rome. And when he saw him, he said: Lord, whither goest thou thus (or here)? And the Lord said unto him: I go into Rome to be crucified. And Peter said unto him: Lord, art thou (being) crucified again? He said unto him: Yea, Peter, I am (being) crucified again. And Peter came to himself: and having beheld the Lord ascending up into heaven, he returned to Rome, rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, for that he said: I am being crucified: the which was about to befall Peter.
I beseech you the executioners, crucify me thus, with the head downward and not otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear. And when they had hanged him up after the manner he desired, he began again to say: Ye men unto whom it belongeth to hear, hearken to that which I shall declare unto you at this especial time as I hang here. Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell (was borne) head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down -who also cast his first state down upon the earth- established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation (Gk. vocation) wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom. This thought, therefore, have I declared unto you; and the figure wherein ye now see me hanging is the representation of that man that first came unto birth.
And Marcellus not asking leave of any, for it was not possible, when he saw that Peter had given up the ghost, took him down from the cross with his own hands and washed him in milk and wine: and cut fine seven minae of mastic, and of myrrh and aloes and indian leaf other fifty, and perfumed (embalmed) his body and filled a coffin of marble of great price with Attic honey and laid it in his own tomb.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html
This is the rock solid foundation on which Catholics like Windsor build their faith.
The Majority View Of 1 Corinthians 15:50
"A significant minority of today's commentators interpret 'flesh and blood' [in 1 Corinthians 15:50] as a synonym for 'physical.' However, most agree it is a figure of speech - and probably a Semitism - referring to humans as mortal beings...It resembles North American idioms that refer to a person as being cold-blooded, hot-blooded, or red-blooded. When referring to a 'red-blooded male,' North Americans are not contrasting him with one who is green-blooded. The color and temperature of one's blood are not relevant. The expression 'flesh and blood' appears fives times in the New Testament (three of which are in the Pauline corpus), appears twice in the LXX and is common in the rabbinic literature, all carrying the primary sense of mortality rather than physicality." (Michael Licona, The Resurrection Of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010], pp. 417-418)
Friday, November 19, 2010
Pope La Bête
Scott Windsor:
I am referring to the Bishop of Rome, as I clearly stated. Who is this "Pope La Bête?" When was this alleged "inaugural pontiff?" How about answering a straight question with a straight answer?
Happy to oblige:
La Bible de Jérusalem
Apocalypse, chapitre 13
Ap 13:1- Alors je vis surgir de la mer une Bête ayant sept têtes et dix cornes, sur ses cornes dix diadèmes, et sur ses têtes des titres blasphématoires.
Ap 13:2- La Bête que je vis ressemblait à une panthère, avec les pattes comme celles d'un ours et la gueule comme une gueule de lion ; et le Dragon lui transmit sa puissance et son trône et un pouvoir immense.
Ap 13:3- L'une de ses têtes paraissait blessée à mort, mais sa plaie mortelle fut guérie ; alors émerveillée, la terre entière suivit la Bête.
Ap 13:4- On se prosterna devant le Dragon, parce qu'il avait remis le pouvoir à la Bête ; et l'on se prosterna devant la Bête en disant : " Qui égale la Bête, et qui peut lutter contre elle ? "
Ap 13:5- On lui donna de proférer des paroles d'orgueil et de blasphème ; on lui donna pouvoir d'agir durant quarante-deux mois ;
Ap 13:6- alors elle se mit à proférer des blasphèmes contre Dieu, à blasphémer son nom et sa demeure, ceux qui demeurent au ciel.
Ap 13:7- On lui donna de mener campagne contre les saints et de les vaincre ; on lui donna pouvoir sur toute race, peuple, langue ou nation.
Ap 13:8- Et ils l'adoreront, tous les habitants de la terre dont le nom ne se trouve pas écrit, dès l'origine du monde, dans le livre de vie de l'Agneau égorgé.
Ap 13:9- Celui qui a des oreilles, qu'il entende !
Ap 13:10- Les chaînes pour qui doit être enchaîné ; la mort par le glaive pour qui doit périr par le glaive ! Voilà qui fonde l'endurance et la confiance des saints.
Ap 13:11- Je vis ensuite surgir de la terre une autre Bête ; elle avait deux cornes comme un agneau, mais parlait comme un dragon.
Ap 13:12- Au service de la première Bête, elle en établit partout le pouvoir, amenant la terre et ses habitants à adorer cette première Bête dont la plaie mortelle fut guérie.
Ap 13:13- Elle accomplit des prodiges étonnants : jusqu'à faire descendre, aux yeux de tous, le feu du ciel sur la terre ;
Ap 13:14- et, par les prodiges qu'il lui a été donné d'accomplir au service de la Bête, elle fourvoie les habitants de la terre, leur disant de dresser une image en l'honneur de cette Bête qui, frappée du glaive, a repris vie.
Ap 13:15- On lui donna même d'animer l'image de la Bête pour la faire parler, et de faire en sorte que fussent mis à mort tous ceux qui n'adoreraient pas l'image de la Bête.
Ap 13:16- Par ses manœuvres, tous, petits et grands, riches ou pauvres, libres et esclaves, se feront marquer sur la main droite ou sur le front,
Ap 13:17- et nul ne pourra rien acheter ni vendre s'il n'est marqué au nom de la Bête ou au chiffre de son nom.
Ap 13:18- C'est ici qu'il faut de la finesse ! Que l'homme doué d'esprit calcule le chiffre de la Bête, c'est un chiffre d'homme : son chiffre, c'est 666
http://www.biblia-cerf.com/BJ/ap13.html
I am referring to the Bishop of Rome, as I clearly stated. Who is this "Pope La Bête?" When was this alleged "inaugural pontiff?" How about answering a straight question with a straight answer?
Happy to oblige:
La Bible de Jérusalem
Apocalypse, chapitre 13
Ap 13:1- Alors je vis surgir de la mer une Bête ayant sept têtes et dix cornes, sur ses cornes dix diadèmes, et sur ses têtes des titres blasphématoires.
Ap 13:2- La Bête que je vis ressemblait à une panthère, avec les pattes comme celles d'un ours et la gueule comme une gueule de lion ; et le Dragon lui transmit sa puissance et son trône et un pouvoir immense.
Ap 13:3- L'une de ses têtes paraissait blessée à mort, mais sa plaie mortelle fut guérie ; alors émerveillée, la terre entière suivit la Bête.
Ap 13:4- On se prosterna devant le Dragon, parce qu'il avait remis le pouvoir à la Bête ; et l'on se prosterna devant la Bête en disant : " Qui égale la Bête, et qui peut lutter contre elle ? "
Ap 13:5- On lui donna de proférer des paroles d'orgueil et de blasphème ; on lui donna pouvoir d'agir durant quarante-deux mois ;
Ap 13:6- alors elle se mit à proférer des blasphèmes contre Dieu, à blasphémer son nom et sa demeure, ceux qui demeurent au ciel.
Ap 13:7- On lui donna de mener campagne contre les saints et de les vaincre ; on lui donna pouvoir sur toute race, peuple, langue ou nation.
Ap 13:8- Et ils l'adoreront, tous les habitants de la terre dont le nom ne se trouve pas écrit, dès l'origine du monde, dans le livre de vie de l'Agneau égorgé.
Ap 13:9- Celui qui a des oreilles, qu'il entende !
Ap 13:10- Les chaînes pour qui doit être enchaîné ; la mort par le glaive pour qui doit périr par le glaive ! Voilà qui fonde l'endurance et la confiance des saints.
Ap 13:11- Je vis ensuite surgir de la terre une autre Bête ; elle avait deux cornes comme un agneau, mais parlait comme un dragon.
Ap 13:12- Au service de la première Bête, elle en établit partout le pouvoir, amenant la terre et ses habitants à adorer cette première Bête dont la plaie mortelle fut guérie.
Ap 13:13- Elle accomplit des prodiges étonnants : jusqu'à faire descendre, aux yeux de tous, le feu du ciel sur la terre ;
Ap 13:14- et, par les prodiges qu'il lui a été donné d'accomplir au service de la Bête, elle fourvoie les habitants de la terre, leur disant de dresser une image en l'honneur de cette Bête qui, frappée du glaive, a repris vie.
Ap 13:15- On lui donna même d'animer l'image de la Bête pour la faire parler, et de faire en sorte que fussent mis à mort tous ceux qui n'adoreraient pas l'image de la Bête.
Ap 13:16- Par ses manœuvres, tous, petits et grands, riches ou pauvres, libres et esclaves, se feront marquer sur la main droite ou sur le front,
Ap 13:17- et nul ne pourra rien acheter ni vendre s'il n'est marqué au nom de la Bête ou au chiffre de son nom.
Ap 13:18- C'est ici qu'il faut de la finesse ! Que l'homme doué d'esprit calcule le chiffre de la Bête, c'est un chiffre d'homme : son chiffre, c'est 666
http://www.biblia-cerf.com/BJ/ap13.html
Two rights don't make a wrong
JT SAID:
Is it possible that simply asking the question, "What if Jesus ran for public office?" actually does the Gospel more harm than good?
To the contrary, that’s a useful way of exposing their real opinion of Jesus.
By simply asking this question, I suggest you've inadvertently obscured the fullness of Jesus' good news. For instance, you downplay the physical needs of this world saying they are largely backloaded…
I didn’t say the physical needs of the world are backloaded. The physical needs are perennial.
…and awaiting fulfillment in the eschaton.
How does it obscure the gospel to state an incontrovertible fact of Biblical eschatology? Is everyone healed in the church age? No. Is everyone immortal in the church age? No. Does everyone have all his physical needs met during the church age? No.
However, Jesus' redemption of our souls is similarly backloaded in that we continue to struggle against the flesh and long for our deliverance. Paul uses the same sort of language to describe the groanings of a split soul as he does to describe all of creation as if in childbirth. Our justification and sealing by the Spirit are the promise of God to fully redeem us in the next life. Meanwhile, we wrestle in the fires of sanctification, sometimes in triumph, other times in defeat. How then is your claim that Jesus prioritized the saving of souls (implied in the phrase "you can only participate in the new Eden if you first come to Christ") an accurate representation of the fullness of his message?
Since you apparently admit that the ultimate satisfaction of both our physical and spiritual needs is backloaded, how is my representation inaccurate? You comparison extends my representation rather than refutes my representation.
You turn to statistics to make your point, saying Jesus healed only a small fraction of those alive at the time who were sick. And yet, is it not also true that at the conclusion of his ministry he had only amassed 120 devoted followers? This too is a tiny fraction of the overall population of souls in need of salvation.
Since you admit that my original statement was true, how does your introducionof another true statement negate the truth of my statement? Do two rights make a wrong?
As a Calvinist, one must at least believe in the possibility that Jesus could have elected all the people of the world during his lifetime, and yet chose not to, just as he chose not to heal all those with disease.
How is that relevant to the point of my post? It wasn’t a priority for him to save everyone or heal everyone. Therefore…what?
I hope you see value in my question.
Actually, I don’t.
I believe that by forcing Jesus into the American political peg-hole, you have had to round off certain portions of his Gospel in order to make him fit our context.
You have a problem following the argument. I was responding to many Catholics and some evangelicals on their own terms. Those who voted for Obama. Those who say Christians should vote for Democrats.
If you object, then you ought to direct your objection to them as well. But I don’t see you doing that.
No doubt he is pro-family values and pro-life, but he preached the redemption of the whole world - the physical as well as the spiritual - none of which is ultimately fulfilled until the Eschaton.
Once again, how does that refute the point of the post?
To prioritize spiritual redemption over physical redemption is, in my opinion, a form of gnosticism rather than orthodoxy.
Let’s see. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t heal everyone. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t enrich everyone. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t preach about carbon emissions, &c.
Is it “gnostic” to note the actual content of his message? Is it “gnostic” to note what he did or didn’t say?
As an example, it ignores the numerous calls in Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) to care for and protect the "widows and orphans," a group particularly vulnerable to social injustice in the ancient world.
Actually, I don’t see where the Bible says anything about “social injustice.” The Bible does have lots to say about “injustice” and “injustice,” so why do we need the adjective?
“Social justice” has become a code word for a liberal social agenda. What’s wrong with plain old “justice.”
Faithfully analogizing from these clear prescriptions must at least include some effort and concern to protect and care for the oppressed and vulnerable groups of our society and throughout the world.
Which misses the point of my post.
Thus, I suggest the pursuit of justice for the oppressed, the healing of disease, ecological stewardship, AND the conversion of souls are all priorities of the overall mission of God to undo the curse as he leads us through the process of the New Exodus, which will culminate one day in the ultimate Promised Land of the New Heavens and the New Earth.
i) I’m all for medical science–as well as medical missionaries. However, that’s not going to reverse the curse. Only the return of Christ will make us immortal and disease-free.
ii) As a practical matter, I don’t know how you propose to pursue global justice for the oppressed. Through the UN Commission on Human Rights? Through the International Court of Justice? Through wars of liberation?
iii) “Ecological stewardship” sounds like a euphemism for global warmists et al. What did you have in mind, exactly?
Perhaps the shortcoming is in our two-party system which forces the either-or mentality upon us. I believe that when Christians choose and then advocate political sides (whether liberal or conservative) in our American system we see Jesus' message co-opted, leaving the "other half" of the country with the perception that the Church is little more than a political advocacy group (think: irrelevant).
i) On the one hand you complain about “gnosticism.” On the other hand you complain about political activism. Seems schizophrenic.
ii) If the “other half” of the country has a misimpression of the Church, that’s a teaching moment. An opportunity to educate the “other half.”
iii) Why shouldn’t we take sides? If, say, one party supports abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia while the other party defends innocent life, why shouldn’t we take sides?
If one party supports honoring your father and mother, while the other party supports honoring “two mommies,” why shouldn’t we take sides?
If one party supports freedom of Christian expression while the other party supports laws to criminalize Christian expression as hate-speech, why shouldn’t we take sides?
Is it possible that simply asking the question, "What if Jesus ran for public office?" actually does the Gospel more harm than good?
To the contrary, that’s a useful way of exposing their real opinion of Jesus.
By simply asking this question, I suggest you've inadvertently obscured the fullness of Jesus' good news. For instance, you downplay the physical needs of this world saying they are largely backloaded…
I didn’t say the physical needs of the world are backloaded. The physical needs are perennial.
…and awaiting fulfillment in the eschaton.
How does it obscure the gospel to state an incontrovertible fact of Biblical eschatology? Is everyone healed in the church age? No. Is everyone immortal in the church age? No. Does everyone have all his physical needs met during the church age? No.
However, Jesus' redemption of our souls is similarly backloaded in that we continue to struggle against the flesh and long for our deliverance. Paul uses the same sort of language to describe the groanings of a split soul as he does to describe all of creation as if in childbirth. Our justification and sealing by the Spirit are the promise of God to fully redeem us in the next life. Meanwhile, we wrestle in the fires of sanctification, sometimes in triumph, other times in defeat. How then is your claim that Jesus prioritized the saving of souls (implied in the phrase "you can only participate in the new Eden if you first come to Christ") an accurate representation of the fullness of his message?
Since you apparently admit that the ultimate satisfaction of both our physical and spiritual needs is backloaded, how is my representation inaccurate? You comparison extends my representation rather than refutes my representation.
You turn to statistics to make your point, saying Jesus healed only a small fraction of those alive at the time who were sick. And yet, is it not also true that at the conclusion of his ministry he had only amassed 120 devoted followers? This too is a tiny fraction of the overall population of souls in need of salvation.
Since you admit that my original statement was true, how does your introducionof another true statement negate the truth of my statement? Do two rights make a wrong?
As a Calvinist, one must at least believe in the possibility that Jesus could have elected all the people of the world during his lifetime, and yet chose not to, just as he chose not to heal all those with disease.
How is that relevant to the point of my post? It wasn’t a priority for him to save everyone or heal everyone. Therefore…what?
I hope you see value in my question.
Actually, I don’t.
I believe that by forcing Jesus into the American political peg-hole, you have had to round off certain portions of his Gospel in order to make him fit our context.
You have a problem following the argument. I was responding to many Catholics and some evangelicals on their own terms. Those who voted for Obama. Those who say Christians should vote for Democrats.
If you object, then you ought to direct your objection to them as well. But I don’t see you doing that.
No doubt he is pro-family values and pro-life, but he preached the redemption of the whole world - the physical as well as the spiritual - none of which is ultimately fulfilled until the Eschaton.
Once again, how does that refute the point of the post?
To prioritize spiritual redemption over physical redemption is, in my opinion, a form of gnosticism rather than orthodoxy.
Let’s see. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t heal everyone. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t enrich everyone. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t preach about carbon emissions, &c.
Is it “gnostic” to note the actual content of his message? Is it “gnostic” to note what he did or didn’t say?
As an example, it ignores the numerous calls in Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) to care for and protect the "widows and orphans," a group particularly vulnerable to social injustice in the ancient world.
Actually, I don’t see where the Bible says anything about “social injustice.” The Bible does have lots to say about “injustice” and “injustice,” so why do we need the adjective?
“Social justice” has become a code word for a liberal social agenda. What’s wrong with plain old “justice.”
Faithfully analogizing from these clear prescriptions must at least include some effort and concern to protect and care for the oppressed and vulnerable groups of our society and throughout the world.
Which misses the point of my post.
Thus, I suggest the pursuit of justice for the oppressed, the healing of disease, ecological stewardship, AND the conversion of souls are all priorities of the overall mission of God to undo the curse as he leads us through the process of the New Exodus, which will culminate one day in the ultimate Promised Land of the New Heavens and the New Earth.
i) I’m all for medical science–as well as medical missionaries. However, that’s not going to reverse the curse. Only the return of Christ will make us immortal and disease-free.
ii) As a practical matter, I don’t know how you propose to pursue global justice for the oppressed. Through the UN Commission on Human Rights? Through the International Court of Justice? Through wars of liberation?
iii) “Ecological stewardship” sounds like a euphemism for global warmists et al. What did you have in mind, exactly?
Perhaps the shortcoming is in our two-party system which forces the either-or mentality upon us. I believe that when Christians choose and then advocate political sides (whether liberal or conservative) in our American system we see Jesus' message co-opted, leaving the "other half" of the country with the perception that the Church is little more than a political advocacy group (think: irrelevant).
i) On the one hand you complain about “gnosticism.” On the other hand you complain about political activism. Seems schizophrenic.
ii) If the “other half” of the country has a misimpression of the Church, that’s a teaching moment. An opportunity to educate the “other half.”
iii) Why shouldn’t we take sides? If, say, one party supports abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia while the other party defends innocent life, why shouldn’t we take sides?
If one party supports honoring your father and mother, while the other party supports honoring “two mommies,” why shouldn’t we take sides?
If one party supports freedom of Christian expression while the other party supports laws to criminalize Christian expression as hate-speech, why shouldn’t we take sides?
See Bobby Grow
This popped up on the site meter:
Bobby Grow
I would like to steer you clear of the Triablogue crew. They are certainly intelligent sharp cookies, but they are roundly centered in the ‘kind of Calvinism’ that this blog severely opposes in orientation.
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/10/13/my-evangelical-calvinist-testimony/#comment-1914
I’m not suggesting that Steve doesn’t argue forcefully and cogently, but it’s exactly that that in my mind does not substantiate his Calvinism (his logical/causal reasoning) — and he thinks it does.
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/10/13/my-evangelical-calvinist-testimony/#comment-1932
A few quick comments:
1. It’s true that at a substantive level, my five-point Calvinism, with its supralapsarian theodicy and all, is probably the antithesis of Bobby’s Barthian/Amyraldian synthesis, filtered through Kendall/Torrance/Bloesch et al.
2. But in another respect I find his comment a bit odd. From what I can tell, one of his primary targets is the Confessional Calvinism espoused by Scott Clark. However, Triablogue is a very different beast from Heidelblog.
3. Apropos (2), methodologically speaking, Bobby’s blog shares an ironic degree of affinity with Heidelblog.
Like Scott Clark (as well as Richard Muller), Bobby’s penchant is to cast the major issues in terms of historical theology rather than exegetical theology. He has an essentially Hegelian methodology. The history of ideas–in their dialectical refraction.
By contrast, I’ve offered far more exegetical support for my theology than I see Bobby doing on his blog. His master’s thesis has an exegetical orientation, but that’s hardly front and center on his blog.
4. It’s true that I sometimes argue on purely “logical” grounds, but that’s chiefly when I’m fielding “logical” objections to Calvinism by Arminians.
Bobby Grow
I would like to steer you clear of the Triablogue crew. They are certainly intelligent sharp cookies, but they are roundly centered in the ‘kind of Calvinism’ that this blog severely opposes in orientation.
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/10/13/my-evangelical-calvinist-testimony/#comment-1914
I’m not suggesting that Steve doesn’t argue forcefully and cogently, but it’s exactly that that in my mind does not substantiate his Calvinism (his logical/causal reasoning) — and he thinks it does.
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/10/13/my-evangelical-calvinist-testimony/#comment-1932
A few quick comments:
1. It’s true that at a substantive level, my five-point Calvinism, with its supralapsarian theodicy and all, is probably the antithesis of Bobby’s Barthian/Amyraldian synthesis, filtered through Kendall/Torrance/Bloesch et al.
2. But in another respect I find his comment a bit odd. From what I can tell, one of his primary targets is the Confessional Calvinism espoused by Scott Clark. However, Triablogue is a very different beast from Heidelblog.
3. Apropos (2), methodologically speaking, Bobby’s blog shares an ironic degree of affinity with Heidelblog.
Like Scott Clark (as well as Richard Muller), Bobby’s penchant is to cast the major issues in terms of historical theology rather than exegetical theology. He has an essentially Hegelian methodology. The history of ideas–in their dialectical refraction.
By contrast, I’ve offered far more exegetical support for my theology than I see Bobby doing on his blog. His master’s thesis has an exegetical orientation, but that’s hardly front and center on his blog.
4. It’s true that I sometimes argue on purely “logical” grounds, but that’s chiefly when I’m fielding “logical” objections to Calvinism by Arminians.
Cats & dogs
DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:
In fairness, Jesus' ministry was not political. If it had been, he would presumably have done a great deal differently. A spiritual ministry will tend to spiritual needs; necessarily at the detriment of the kinds of short-term needs which are the domain of politics. A political ministry would presumably tend to those short-term needs, at the expense of long-term spiritual needs. So I'm not sure how much we can infer from the gospels about Jesus' stance as a hypothetical political candidate.
Except that my post was directed at evangelicals who presume to take a WWJD approach to justify their views on universal healthcare, amnesty, environmentalism, foreign aid, &c. If you want to say that we can’t extrapolate from the example of Jesus, then that undercuts their religious appeal.
I'd also add that, as a non-American, the US political system strikes me as a truly bizarre monstrosity. Americans seem to think that Democrat or Republican are basically the only two political views a man can take; and never the twain shall meet. And I'm no political expert, but from where I'm standing in a country with a spectrum of political parties ranging from strong socialist to the other extreme, Democrats and Republicans look pretty similar. Both right wing. One just slightly further left than the other.
Several problems:
i) To my knowledge, New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy, and in parliamentary systems, from what I’ve read, a candidate can’t run directly for the top office (prime minister), unlike a presidential system, where anyone can run for president (or national or statewide office). Rather, the prime minister is “elected” by the ruling party. In that respect, candidates are even more beholden to the party line (pun intended) in parliamentary systems than they are in presidential systems. But perhaps New Zealand is different.
ii) From what I’ve read, New Zealand has a national population about half the size of NYC, and less than half the size of LA county.
Obviously, in a continental nation the size of the US, political movements must affiliate around large voting blocs to compete on a national stage. It’s a blunt instrument. So the dominant political players aren’t going to mirror the finely-shaded ideological continuum of a country with a fraction of the total population.
iii) In a presidential system like ours, just about anyone of any political stripe (from far right to far left) can run as a Democrat or Republican in the primaries (for mayor, governor, senator, congressman, president, state attorney general). It’s not the two-party system that’s weeding out ideological diversity, but primary voters. They have a roster of candidates to choose from, even among Democrats and Republicans. And they can also vote for third-party candidates.
iv) I don’t see how you can rationally treat the Democrat party and Republican party as near equivalents. Just consider the types of voters who comprise their respective constituencies:
The Republican party caters to hawks, businessmen, libertarians, gun-owners, prolifers, conservative Christians, law-and-order types, &c.
By contrast, the Democrat party caters to deviants, peaceniks, sob sisters, global warmists, abortionists, atheists, euthanasiasts, public-sector employees, selected minorities, &c.
In fairness, Jesus' ministry was not political. If it had been, he would presumably have done a great deal differently. A spiritual ministry will tend to spiritual needs; necessarily at the detriment of the kinds of short-term needs which are the domain of politics. A political ministry would presumably tend to those short-term needs, at the expense of long-term spiritual needs. So I'm not sure how much we can infer from the gospels about Jesus' stance as a hypothetical political candidate.
Except that my post was directed at evangelicals who presume to take a WWJD approach to justify their views on universal healthcare, amnesty, environmentalism, foreign aid, &c. If you want to say that we can’t extrapolate from the example of Jesus, then that undercuts their religious appeal.
I'd also add that, as a non-American, the US political system strikes me as a truly bizarre monstrosity. Americans seem to think that Democrat or Republican are basically the only two political views a man can take; and never the twain shall meet. And I'm no political expert, but from where I'm standing in a country with a spectrum of political parties ranging from strong socialist to the other extreme, Democrats and Republicans look pretty similar. Both right wing. One just slightly further left than the other.
Several problems:
i) To my knowledge, New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy, and in parliamentary systems, from what I’ve read, a candidate can’t run directly for the top office (prime minister), unlike a presidential system, where anyone can run for president (or national or statewide office). Rather, the prime minister is “elected” by the ruling party. In that respect, candidates are even more beholden to the party line (pun intended) in parliamentary systems than they are in presidential systems. But perhaps New Zealand is different.
ii) From what I’ve read, New Zealand has a national population about half the size of NYC, and less than half the size of LA county.
Obviously, in a continental nation the size of the US, political movements must affiliate around large voting blocs to compete on a national stage. It’s a blunt instrument. So the dominant political players aren’t going to mirror the finely-shaded ideological continuum of a country with a fraction of the total population.
iii) In a presidential system like ours, just about anyone of any political stripe (from far right to far left) can run as a Democrat or Republican in the primaries (for mayor, governor, senator, congressman, president, state attorney general). It’s not the two-party system that’s weeding out ideological diversity, but primary voters. They have a roster of candidates to choose from, even among Democrats and Republicans. And they can also vote for third-party candidates.
iv) I don’t see how you can rationally treat the Democrat party and Republican party as near equivalents. Just consider the types of voters who comprise their respective constituencies:
The Republican party caters to hawks, businessmen, libertarians, gun-owners, prolifers, conservative Christians, law-and-order types, &c.
By contrast, the Democrat party caters to deviants, peaceniks, sob sisters, global warmists, abortionists, atheists, euthanasiasts, public-sector employees, selected minorities, &c.
Vicarious baptism
Mormons notoriously practice proxy baptism. They cite the cryptic verse in 1 Cor 15:29 as their prooftexts. For now I’m not going to discuss the correct interpretation of that passage. Ciampa/Rosner have a thorough and sensible explanation in their newly published commentary.
I’m going to make a different point. There’s an inner logic to the Mormon position given the premise, and their premise is a premise which liturgical churches share. If you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, then there's an undeniable logic to proxy baptism given your operating assumption. After all, if someone dies before he was baptized, then the only way to save him would be through some retroactive, postmortem transaction involving a second party.
And liturgical traditions generally agree with Mormonism on the necessity of baptism. They like to quote those Scriptural passages which verbally link baptism to salvation, or other attendant blessings. They prooftext baptismal regeneration and/or baptismal justification.
But if, for the sake of argument, we accept that connection, then what about those who never had an opportunity to be saved?
Of course, you have churches which accept the premise, but then have to fudge on their governing principle, like the ad hoc, Tridentine escape-clauses involving baptism by desire or baptism by martyrdom. But in that respect, Mormonism is more consistent with the faulty premise than Catholicism.
It’s easy to attack the Mormon position, and rightly so. After all, Mormonism is a thoroughgoing cult. But when you think about it, liturgical churches operate within the same framework. They are simply less consistent. Vicarious baptism represents the reductio ad absurdum of a premise widely held by many theological traditions.
I’m going to make a different point. There’s an inner logic to the Mormon position given the premise, and their premise is a premise which liturgical churches share. If you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, then there's an undeniable logic to proxy baptism given your operating assumption. After all, if someone dies before he was baptized, then the only way to save him would be through some retroactive, postmortem transaction involving a second party.
And liturgical traditions generally agree with Mormonism on the necessity of baptism. They like to quote those Scriptural passages which verbally link baptism to salvation, or other attendant blessings. They prooftext baptismal regeneration and/or baptismal justification.
But if, for the sake of argument, we accept that connection, then what about those who never had an opportunity to be saved?
Of course, you have churches which accept the premise, but then have to fudge on their governing principle, like the ad hoc, Tridentine escape-clauses involving baptism by desire or baptism by martyrdom. But in that respect, Mormonism is more consistent with the faulty premise than Catholicism.
It’s easy to attack the Mormon position, and rightly so. After all, Mormonism is a thoroughgoing cult. But when you think about it, liturgical churches operate within the same framework. They are simply less consistent. Vicarious baptism represents the reductio ad absurdum of a premise widely held by many theological traditions.
A Non-Physical Body In 1 Corinthians 15:44?
Does 1 Corinthians 15:44 contrast a physical body against one that's spiritual, thus suggesting that the resurrection body is non-physical? Here's a summary of Michael Licona's findings in his study of the passage:
"Moreover, it is worth observing that had Paul desired to communicate this sort of contrast [between the physical and the non-physical], he had better words at his disposal, one of which he had employed just a few chapters earlier [in 1 Corinthians 9:11] while using a seed analogy similar to that of 1 Corinthians 15....if he had desired to communicate that our resurrection body would not be physical but rather immaterial in nature, why use the former term in a sense not employed earlier in his letter or for that matter anywhere else in the Pauline corpus, the New Testament or by any known author from the eighth century B.C. through the third century A.D., while ignoring a clearer term used just a few chapters earlier in a similar seed analogy?...I located 846 occurrences of the former [the term 'natural' in 1 Corinthians 15:44] from the eighth-century B.C. through the third-century A.D. and could not locate a single occurrence of the term that meant 'physical' or 'material.' This discovery in itself eliminates any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:44 that has Paul asserting physical corpses are buried while resurrection bodies will be immaterial (a la Wedderburn, RSV/NRSV et al.)." (The Resurrection Of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010], pp. 414-415, 618)
"Moreover, it is worth observing that had Paul desired to communicate this sort of contrast [between the physical and the non-physical], he had better words at his disposal, one of which he had employed just a few chapters earlier [in 1 Corinthians 9:11] while using a seed analogy similar to that of 1 Corinthians 15....if he had desired to communicate that our resurrection body would not be physical but rather immaterial in nature, why use the former term in a sense not employed earlier in his letter or for that matter anywhere else in the Pauline corpus, the New Testament or by any known author from the eighth century B.C. through the third century A.D., while ignoring a clearer term used just a few chapters earlier in a similar seed analogy?...I located 846 occurrences of the former [the term 'natural' in 1 Corinthians 15:44] from the eighth-century B.C. through the third-century A.D. and could not locate a single occurrence of the term that meant 'physical' or 'material.' This discovery in itself eliminates any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:44 that has Paul asserting physical corpses are buried while resurrection bodies will be immaterial (a la Wedderburn, RSV/NRSV et al.)." (The Resurrection Of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010], pp. 414-415, 618)
Thursday, November 18, 2010
William Lane Craig Debates Richard Dawkins
From a supplement to William Lane Craig's November newsletter:
If you're signed up for Craig's web site, you can get access to a photo of him standing in the boxing ring he refers to, along with Richard Dawkins, here.
At the reception, Professor Roemer shocked me by telling me that Michio Kaku didn’t want to be part of our debate (he later described himself to me as “a waffler”), and so Richard Dawkins was on the panel instead! I could scarcely believe my ears! It just seemed unbelievable that Dawkins and I were going to finally cross swords in a public forum.
We were then taken by bus to a second reception back at the hotel. As I stood there, talking with other conference presenters, I saw Richard Dawkins come in. When he drew near, I extended my hand and introduced myself. I remarked, “I’m surprised to see that you’re on the panel.”
“And why not?” he replied.
“Well,” I said, “You’ve always refused to debate me.”
His tone suddenly became icy cold. “I don’t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.” At that, he turned away.
“Well, I hope we have a good discussion,” I said.
“I very much doubt it,” he retorted and walked off.
So my first encounter with Richard Dawkins was a pretty chilly one!...
The day before the debate Richard Dawkins delivered a hateful screed against religion, denouncing “the evil of faith.” About 40% of the audience gave him a standing ovation. I was glad that most people had the courage to stay seated. The audience, at least, was not as secularized as the conference presenters....
Apart from our debate, no one even questioned this unspoken scientism. So when Dawkins claimed that we should not believe anything except on the basis of (scientific) evidence, no one seemed to notice that his position was self-defeating, since the claim that we should believe only what can be scientifically proven cannot itself be scientifically proven! At this conference, as in Hawking and Mlodinow’s The Grand Design, scientists were taken to be “the torchbearers of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”...
With this steady stream of unthinking naturalism, scientism, and utopianism, you can imagine how refreshed I was by my colleague Doug Geivett’s arrival on Saturday morning! Over breakfast I filled him in on the conference and the unexpected change of Dawkins’ participation. We then traveled to the conference venue, where we met David Wolpe. A coin flip determined that the atheist side would go first. Talking with David, we agreed that I should lead off to lay the groundwork for the debate, David would extend our case, and Doug would be anchor man. As it turned out, this worked really well. Professor Roemer had bought an actual regulation boxing ring which he had set up on stage with a podium in the front! Prior to the debate the theme from “Rocky” was playing over the PA system. Each of us had to climb into the ring to deliver his speech. It was the most unusual venue I’ve ever debated in!
The speeches were only 6 minutes, 3 minutes, and 1 1/2 minutes long, so it was really a fast-paced debate. We defended two contentions: (1) If God does not exist, the universe has no purpose, and (2) If God does exist, the universe does have a purpose. At first the atheist debaters seemed to agree with out first contention but then switched to saying that we can create purpose for our lives, not noticing the difference between objective purpose and the subjective illusion of purpose. They never disputed the second contention or addressed specifically our arguments for theism. The two arguments for atheism disappeared from the debate as soon as they were answered. So we felt really great about how the debate went. While Doug and I dismantled the atheists’ arguments philosophically, David really connected with the audience emotionally, so our styles beautifully complemented each other....
Soon the English version should be up on You Tube; the Spanish translated version is up already.
If you're signed up for Craig's web site, you can get access to a photo of him standing in the boxing ring he refers to, along with Richard Dawkins, here.
If Jesus ran for public office
There are professing Christians who vote for Obama and other Democrats because they think Christians ought to be equally concerned with world poverty, healthcare, ecology, &c. For instance, if you mouse over to the USCCB website, and scroll down the “Social Justice Issues” section, it largely mirrors the party platform of the Democrat party.
We find the same emphasis among representatives of the Evangelical left, like Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo. But in what seems to be a more recent development, we’ve also had mainstream Evangelicals like Craig Blomberg and Darrell Bock telling us they voted for Obama. Likewise, in a faculty survey at Covenant College, 16 profs. identified themselves as Obama voters.
This raises an interesting question: if Jesus ran for public office, would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?
There’s a sense in which Jesus has some concern for healthcare. He healed many sick people and exorcised many demoniacs. Yet one can’t say that was his priority. After all, when you consider all the sick people who were alive at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, he only healed a tiny fraction of the totality. The number he healed was statistically insignificant in relation to the worldwide population of sick people.
And this is despite the fact that Jesus could have cured every single sick man, woman, and child with a mere thought.
Likewise, it lay within his power to make every poor person instantly and unimaginably rich. But he didn’t. Indeed, he himself was a manual laborer for most of his earthly life.
He also neglected ecology. For instance, he did nothing to eliminate solid waste dumps. Or the deforestation of Palestine. Or air pollution from wood stoves. To take a few examples.
On the other hand, he was strong on “family values” like traditional marriage and children. Not to mention true worship.
This is not to say that Jesus doesn’t care about the physical wellbeing of man, or the ecosystem. Yet that is largely backloaded. It awaits the Eschaton. And you can only participate in the new Eden if you first come to Christ.
We also need to distinguish between what the Bible permits and what it prescribes. It is certainly permissible to attend to our immediate necessities. Still, it’s striking to compare the agenda of some professing believers with the priorities of Christ.
We find the same emphasis among representatives of the Evangelical left, like Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo. But in what seems to be a more recent development, we’ve also had mainstream Evangelicals like Craig Blomberg and Darrell Bock telling us they voted for Obama. Likewise, in a faculty survey at Covenant College, 16 profs. identified themselves as Obama voters.
This raises an interesting question: if Jesus ran for public office, would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?
There’s a sense in which Jesus has some concern for healthcare. He healed many sick people and exorcised many demoniacs. Yet one can’t say that was his priority. After all, when you consider all the sick people who were alive at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, he only healed a tiny fraction of the totality. The number he healed was statistically insignificant in relation to the worldwide population of sick people.
And this is despite the fact that Jesus could have cured every single sick man, woman, and child with a mere thought.
Likewise, it lay within his power to make every poor person instantly and unimaginably rich. But he didn’t. Indeed, he himself was a manual laborer for most of his earthly life.
He also neglected ecology. For instance, he did nothing to eliminate solid waste dumps. Or the deforestation of Palestine. Or air pollution from wood stoves. To take a few examples.
On the other hand, he was strong on “family values” like traditional marriage and children. Not to mention true worship.
This is not to say that Jesus doesn’t care about the physical wellbeing of man, or the ecosystem. Yet that is largely backloaded. It awaits the Eschaton. And you can only participate in the new Eden if you first come to Christ.
We also need to distinguish between what the Bible permits and what it prescribes. It is certainly permissible to attend to our immediate necessities. Still, it’s striking to compare the agenda of some professing believers with the priorities of Christ.
Naturalistic Delusions
I've said that Michael Licona's The Resurrection Of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010) has the best treatment I've seen of hallucination theories against Jesus' resurrection. There's far too much material on that subject in the book for me to quote all of it. But here's some of what Licona writes:
[quoting psychologist Gary Sibcy] I have surveyed the professional literature (peer-reviewed journal articles and books) written by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other relevant healthcare professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination, that is, an event for which more than one person purportedly shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no external referent. [end of quote]
In order to avoid the implausibility of a group hallucination, Goulder would have to suggest that the appearance to the Twelve, which is perhaps the most strongly attested of Jesus' postresurrection appearances, involved each disciple experiencing an individual hallucination at the same time....the Twelve were males who probably belonged to various age groups and almost certainly possessed different personality types. Far more punishing to such a proposal [group hallucinations], however, is the requirement of mind-boggling coincidences. Despite the fact that hallucinations are experienced by roughly 15 percent of the general population and a much larger 50 percent of recently bereaved senior adults (only 14 percent of which are visual in nature), an incredible 100 percent of the Twelve would have experienced a hallucination, of Jesus (rather than something else such as guards), simultaneously, in the same mode (visual) and perhaps in multiple modes. It would be an understatement to claim that such a proposal has only a meager possibility of reflecting what actually occurred. Embracing it would require an extraordinary amount of faith....
And it is appropriate to remind ourselves that credulity is not unique to believers and can be present in the historical work of skeptical scholars who uncritically accept poorly supported natural hypotheses that are terribly ad hoc....
Ludemann also equates the postresurrection appearances of Jesus to Marian apparitions, and we have already addressed this assertion previously with Goulder. Like Goulder, Ludemann does not bother to argue that Marian apparitions are necessarily natural and solely psychological events....
we must observe that there is not even a hint that Jesus' disciples performed any of these actions [to enter into an altered state of consciousness] in order to see Jesus. In fact, there is nothing in the texts that suggests they were even trying to enter into an ASC [altered state of consciousness]. Moreover, it is important to observe that neither Craffert nor Pilch provide any documented reports from the social sciences of a group of individuals who were all convinced they were simultaneously engaged in mutually interactive activities (e.g., speaking with, eating with, walking with, or touching) with an individual who was not actually there in an ontologically objective sense....
In reply to Pilch, Wiebe examined more than thirty reports of ASC experiences he received from those who had experienced them. He compares them with OSC [ordinary state of consciousness] experiences, listing ten qualities that are typically, though not always, absent in an ASC....
This [evidence] suggests that the disciples' encounters with the risen Jesus were understood as OSCs. Wiebe concludes that ASCs may appropriately describe other kinds of experiences reported in the New Testament, but they are inadequate for assisting us in understanding the disciples' encounters with the risen Jesus....
Apparitions [of the dead] are not usually observed by groups (2-12 percent), are not usually observed by enemies (less than 1 percent), are not usually touched (2.7 [two-point-seven] percent) and are not usually accompanied by belief that the person has been raised bodily from the dead (less than 1 percent).
While these qualities are not always absent in apparitions, they are very rare. And it would be much rarer to see an apparition containing all of them; approximately 1:3,800,000. In fact, there are no cases in the literature of such an apparition (which means that any hypothesis proposing that the postresurrection appearances of Jesus were no different than standard experiences of apparitions of the dead lacks plausibility)....
This figure [of less than 1 percent of apparitions being seen by an enemy, like Saul of Tarsus] is based on only one reference to an enemy of Christianity who was a Hindu and who converted after he had an experience in which he believed Jesus had appeared to him....
In terms of an empty tomb, I agree with Habermas and Allison that this is a major difference [between what the New Testament reports about Jesus' resurrection and apparitions]. When we add the unanimous reports of the bodily resurrection of Jesus in the earliest narratives and in Acts 2 and Acts 13, the differences between these reports and what we find in the apparitions literature become marked.
(pp. 484-486, 491, 509, 574-576, 635, n. 65 on p. 635, 637)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Chick alors!
CATHAPOL SAID:
"I am not alone, nor did I make up this information about Babylon being a code name for Rome for St. Peter":
there is only one city on the earth which, in both historical and contemporary perspectives, passes every test John gives, including its identification as Mystery Babylon. That city is Rome.
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-church-of-rome.html#1925973043083921061
It's not every day you see a Catholic epologist vouch for Jack Chick scholarship. Since he regards the Jack Chick website as a reliable source of information, I look forward to seeing Scott Windsor on the street corner, passing out Jack Chick tracts and comic books on the church of Rome.
"I am not alone, nor did I make up this information about Babylon being a code name for Rome for St. Peter":
there is only one city on the earth which, in both historical and contemporary perspectives, passes every test John gives, including its identification as Mystery Babylon. That city is Rome.
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-church-of-rome.html#1925973043083921061
It's not every day you see a Catholic epologist vouch for Jack Chick scholarship. Since he regards the Jack Chick website as a reliable source of information, I look forward to seeing Scott Windsor on the street corner, passing out Jack Chick tracts and comic books on the church of Rome.
Living and dying
What does a human death signify in atheism? Imagine a man (or woman) who keeps a diary. He jots down every important event in his life. From time to time he rereads portions of his diary so that he won’t forget the precious memories, like growing up, or raising a child of his own. Evolving friendships.
All the little things that make a life add up to something. That layer a life with sentimental insights and attachments.
Then imagine burning the diary, one page at a time. Start on the very first page. Light the lower right-hand corner, then watch the flame move up the page, consuming every word, sentence, and dated entry. One by one, the flame unwrites everything the diarist wrote. It steadily overtakes the record of his life, from boyhood to old age. The pages smoke and curl into ash, then crumble into dust at the merest breath. His entire life reduced, in a matter of minutes, to a heap of smoldering ash.
But suppose, you say, that’s not all. For he still lives on in the hearts and minds of his children.
Yet the same flame will repeat the same process in the entries of their own lives as well. A series of ash heaps, scattered by the wind.
All the little things that make a life add up to something. That layer a life with sentimental insights and attachments.
Then imagine burning the diary, one page at a time. Start on the very first page. Light the lower right-hand corner, then watch the flame move up the page, consuming every word, sentence, and dated entry. One by one, the flame unwrites everything the diarist wrote. It steadily overtakes the record of his life, from boyhood to old age. The pages smoke and curl into ash, then crumble into dust at the merest breath. His entire life reduced, in a matter of minutes, to a heap of smoldering ash.
But suppose, you say, that’s not all. For he still lives on in the hearts and minds of his children.
Yet the same flame will repeat the same process in the entries of their own lives as well. A series of ash heaps, scattered by the wind.
"The big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism"
According to Richard Dawkins, "The big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/228
This admission is revealing for two reasons:
i) For years on end, Phillip Johnson has been telling us that the debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design is ultimately presuppositional rather than evidentiary. The naturalistic evolutionary biologist has a precommitment to naturalism or materialism. I've read critics of Johnson say he's evading the empirical evidence, but Dawkins is confirming Johnson's diagnosis.
ii) Atheists often try to place the burden of proof on the Christian. But as Dawkins' candid admission implies, these are symmetrical claims. In this "war," both sides are staking out metaphysical ground on the nature of the world.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/228
This admission is revealing for two reasons:
i) For years on end, Phillip Johnson has been telling us that the debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design is ultimately presuppositional rather than evidentiary. The naturalistic evolutionary biologist has a precommitment to naturalism or materialism. I've read critics of Johnson say he's evading the empirical evidence, but Dawkins is confirming Johnson's diagnosis.
ii) Atheists often try to place the burden of proof on the Christian. But as Dawkins' candid admission implies, these are symmetrical claims. In this "war," both sides are staking out metaphysical ground on the nature of the world.
Links To A Review Of Michael Licona's The Resurrection Of Jesus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)