“Reading in Ancient Rome”

My very first blog post at Triablogue dealt with the oral performance of the Gospel of Matthew, and how it very well could account for the odd wording of the phrase in Matthew 16, “you are Peter, and on this rock …”: R.T. France had come to the conclusion that “this rock” could only be Peter, for a reason like this:

Here is one of France’s justifications for his conclusion:

A second escape route, beloved especially by those who wish to refute the claims of the Roman Catholic Church based on the primacy of Peter as the first pope, is to assert that the foundation rock is not Peter himself, but the faith in Jesus as Messiah which he has just declared. If that was what Jesus intended, he has chosen his words badly, as the wordplay points decisively toward Peter, who whom personally he has just given the name, as the rock, and there is nothing in his statement to suggest otherwise. Even more bizarre is the supposition that Jesus, having declared Simon to be Petros, then pointed instead to himself when he said the words “this rock” (“The Gospel of Matthew,” R.T. France, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2007, pg622).

Now, sometimes even “top evangelical New Testament scholars” need a whack on the back of the head. There is no question that Peter was important. But many notable patristic interpretations of this verse hold that “this rock” was not Peter, but rather, Peter’s confession. Among others, Augustine said “Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her” (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48, from here). And following this interpretation, it’s a standard Protestant understanding that “this rock” did not refer to Peter, but rather to Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the son of the Living God”. …

But look again at the rationale that Dr. France uses to dismiss the idea that “this Rock” is not Peter. “Even more bizarre is the supposition that Jesus, having declared Simon to be Petros, then pointed instead to himself when he said the words ‘this rock.’”

That’s a dramatic gesture, and while it may or may not have made sense for Jesus to have made those hand gestures, if one understands that first century Palestine was an “oral culture,” and that oral delivery and rhetoric had much more importance in that day than our day, then the hand gestures take on an important new meaning….

If Peter is not “this rock” but rather, a smaller rock, then that has serious ramifications Rome’s already shaky authority structure. 

Larry Hurtado has had a couple of blog posts now in a couple of days going into this topic of the oral, rhetorical nature of the Gospels:

Yesterday I complained that some offering claims about texts and reading in antiquity didn’t take adequate account of important material evidence, citing the data offered in manuscripts that indicate how they were used.  Specifically, many Christian manuscripts of biblical texts come from the copyist with various “reader’s aids” that were clearly intended to facilitate reading the manuscript.  This shows that people actually read from manuscripts, and weren’t forced to memorize texts and deliver them from memory.

This may well account for some of the “additions” to later manuscripts that weren’t in earlier manuscripts.

Another body of material evidence even more overlooked (to my knowledge) is comprised of the many visual representations of people using texts from the ancient world.  These are paintings, reliefs and sculptures.  These show us the implements used to copy texts, the postures taken in doing so, private and public reading of texts, etc. 

So far as I know (and I would love for someone to correct me), the major collection of this visual evidence is in a very old book:  Theodor Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst:  Archaeologische-antiquarische Untersuchungen zum antiken Buchwesen (Leipzig:  Teubner, 1907; reprint, Hildesheim/New York:  Georg Olms, 1976).   Roughly translated:  “The Bookroll in Art:  Archaeological and Antiquarian Investigations of Ancient Book Culture”.  There are some 190 illustrations (photos and drawings of items).  The timespan ranges from ancient Egypt through late Roman antiquity. 

Specifically relevant to the issue with which I’m concerned (did people read aloud from manuscripts in group settings), Birt provides us ancient visual depictions of such events, with one person reading and others in the group engaging in discussion of the text.  These correspond to the references to the reading-occasions in ancient literature so deftly discussed recently by William A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

Those of us used to printed leaf-books and whose acquaintance with Greek or Latin is solely through printed editions (which typically include modern punctuation and lots of other aids, and most importantly have word-separation) will likely find ancient manuscripts difficult to read.  But it is an error to assume (as, unfortunately, some do) that our difficulty equals that of ancients (for whom “scriptio continua“, i.e., words written without separation, for example, was common). 

Fortunately, Birt’s book has been reprinted a few times (especially in the 1976 reprint mentioned above).  Unfortunately, however, the reprint is a much-reduced size, which means that the illustrations are smaller.  Also, the quality of some photos has suffered.  But, overall, there are plenty of illustrations clear enough to be of value to anyone seriously interested in the use of books in antiquity.

Now here’s a project for someone, perhaps a PhD student in Art History.  What are we to make of the visual depictions of people with a roll and others with a codex?  I have some observations and ideas, but I haven’t made an exhaustive search of relevant items.  I don’t think there are any depictions of “high status” individuals (e.g., emperors and other high figures, philosophers, etc.) with a codex prior to the 4th century CE.  There are likely reasons for that.

But after the “triumph” of Christianity in the 4th century CE, in Christian art thereafter we have figures sometimes depicted with a roll and sometimes (and/or other figures) with a codex.  I can point to depictions of Jesus sometimes with a roll and sometimes with a codex.  Is there an iconographic significance to these choices?  And could someone do a full (or at least large) inventory and analysis (if it hasn’t been done)?

I think this is a fascinating area of study that will further serve to erode Rome’s claims to being the structural center of “the Church that Christ Founded®” 

Santorum now running for VP

Or maybe SecDef. Or SecSomething. It seems pretty evident now with the Romney win in Florida. Either certainly would be a promotion for him. And the timing here is impeccable. [Link to video].

Wycliffe's translation

From here

CAP 1
1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
2 This was in the bigynnyng at God.
3 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
4 In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,
5 and derknessis comprehendiden not it.

Holy Potheads

In light of Michael Sudduth's conversion to Hinduism, and efforts to justify the Hindu "scriptures" philosophically, there's evidence that the Vedic sages were potheads. Here's a classic monograph on the subject:

http://tinyurl.com/6r6zuab

If so, why would we put more stock in their mantic effusions than we would in Timothy Leary?  

Reformation for Kenya

http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/writings/reformation-for-kenya/

IVF

"What to Consider Before Using Reproductive Technologies" by Daniel S. McConchie.

The altar-call racket

I'm going to quote and comment on this post:

http://www.williamwbirch.com/2012/01/saturday-devotion-public-invitation-and.html

There are Calvinists who disdain the evangelistic use of the "altar call," or "public invitation," to come to Christ Jesus. For example, Steve Hays, of Triablogue infamy, insists that the "altar call system is unscriptural." I have to wonder what "scriptures" Hays is reading, because the Christian New Testament grants an ample amount of examples of public invitations for sinners to repent and follow Christ Jesus.

Birch’s argument trades on key equivocations. But let’s begin by describing what the altar call is and how it functions in modern mass evangelism.

Prospective converts are told that performing this ritual, this is how they are saved. Performing this physical formula action is salvific.

On a related note, they are told, not only that this is how to be saved, but how to know that they are saved. Their assurance of salvation depends on a past action which they performed.

If you ask them 5 years later how they know they are saved, they will point back to the altar call.

A classic version of the altar call is for the evangelist to ask, if you were to die tonight, do you know if you’d go to heaven? The evangelist then assures the potential convert that if he performs this ritual, he will go to heaven if he dies tonight in a traffic accident on the way home from the revival (or whatever).

That’s what I’m opposing.

One must wonder also why any Calvinist would disdain the altar call since 1) God meticulously foreordains all things, according to Calvinists, and that would, by necessity, include the altar call;

i) By the same token, God’s meticulous foreordination necessarily includes Calvinists who “disdain” the altar call. Hence, my “distain” is entirely consistent with predestination. Calvinists who “disdain” the alter call are fulfilling God’s decree rather than thwarting God’s decree. God predestined Calvinists to “disdain” the altar-call.

ii) We don’t know in advance what God has decreed. We discover God’s plan by living through time. We learn God’s plan by experience, by watching his plan unfold minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, year-by-year.

iii) God sometimes uses error as a foil to highlight truth. Error stands in contrast to truth. The predestined contrast between truth and error clarifies the nature of both. Like light and shade, they are mutually interpretive.

But there’s also an asymmetry between the two. Error is, at most, a means to an end, whereas truth is an end it itself. Error can have an instrumental value whereas truth has intrinsic value.

2) God can bring His elect to Christ through the altar call;

i) Which ironically illustrates the fact that an Arminian method can only work under Calvinist assumptions.

ii) To take a comparison, God can use false prophets like Balaam and Caiaphas. They do his bidding in spite of themselves. Yet that doesn’t prevent God from condemning false prophets.

3) The altar call is merely a public invitation to trust in Christ;

i) To the contrary, it’s a factory or assembly line to mechanically produce converts. And it thereby confers false assurance on skin-deep converts.

ii) I don’t object to ministers (or laymen, for that matter) issuing a public invitation to trust in Christ. What I object to is when they promise members of the audience that if they perform a ritual, that’s equivalent to saving faith.

 4) Jesus Himself called people publicly unto Himself;

That’s equivocal. For instance, he called the disciples to accompany him. But that’s not equivalent to saving faith. Did Judas exercise saving faith when he accompanied Christ? No. That’s just a physical action.

 5) Christ's disciples also called people publicly unto repentance and faith in Jesus;

Fact is, the altar call is a substitute sacrament. A counterfeit ordinance. We already have a biblical ordinance by which adult converts publicly profess their faith in Christ: baptism. That’s the divinely-authorized rite of initiation–not the altar call. That’s how a convert is supposed to publicly testify to his faith in Christ.

(Of course, as time goes on, there is also the witness of his life.)

and 6) ministers can just as easily manipulate people through their sermons -- they certainly do not need an altar to accomplish that!

A red herring.

Birch then quotes a chapter from a book defending the altar call.

Most Calvinists oppose the use of a public invitation or altar call at the end of sermons.1 They think such practices tend to be confusing at best, spiritually dangerous at worst, and certainly a hindrance to true evangelism. Strict five-point Calvinists criticize the invitation on three grounds. First, they believe it has no biblical support. Second, they believe its origin can be traced back only a few hundred years. Third, they think it is incompatible with their understanding of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. . . .

Instead of Alan Street putting words in my mouth and telling me why I oppose the altar call, I prefer to speak for myself.

i) A general reason I oppose the altar call is because the alter call presupposes a particular theory of how we acquire our beliefs. The technical term for this is direct doxastic voluntarism.

On this theory, we enjoy direct voluntary control over what we believe or disbelieve. We can instantly believe or disbelieve something by a sheer act of the will.

I reject this theory, in part, because it’s a paper theory that’s totally at odds with human experience. We don’t simply choose to believe or disbelieve something. There are many things we can’t help believing, just as there are many things we can’t help not believing.

As a rule, we simply find ourselves believing something or disbelieving something. We have a predisposition to believe or disbelieve certain things. When we’re exposed to perceived evidence or counterevidence, in conjunction with our predisposition, we form a corresponding belief.

Sometimes we can do things to cultivate or undermine a belief. If that succeeds, that is, at best, a delayed effect. And even that’s hit-n-miss.

Belief is an act of perception (or apprehension) rather than an act of the will. It’s an empirical fact of human experience that we don’t simply believe or disbelieve at will.

This confuses belief with action. We can will ourselves to act in certain ways, in accordance with our beliefs. To act on or act out what we already believe.

ii) One needs to distinguish between conversion and faith. Conversion can occur at a subliminal level. In his autobiography (Sometimes Mountains Move), Everett Koop describes his conversion experience. He began attending Tenth Presbyterian Church. When he started, he was not a Christian. He heard the sermons from the viewpoint of an outsider. An unbeliever. But one day it dawned on him that he was now hearing the sermons as an insider. At some point he had indiscernibly crossed over to the other side. He wasn’t conscious of the underlying process. He wasn’t aware of the transition. He only became aware of the result. It occurred to him that he was now hearing the sermon with the ears of faith.

Saving faith is the conscious effect of a subconscious event.

Some folks go to church all their life, but it never clicks. For other people, they can’t remember a time when they didn’t believe. There was a time when they were too young to believe. But saving faith was a spontaneous part of their emerging awareness.

Some folks may attend a church service for the very first time and immediately believe what they hear, as if God prepared their hearts in advance.

Some people are nominal believers until they hear a clear presentation of the Bible, at which point they turn against the faith. The message hardens them.

Some people hear the message, but it has no immediate impact, or they may initially resist. Yet it has a delayed effect–like planting a seed that slowly germinates just under the surface, until it emerges. It takes hold and grows on them.

Jesus called people to follow Him publicly. He promised, "Whosoever confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father in heaven" (Matt. 10:32). Conversely, He warned, "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven" ([Matt. 10:33]). Jesus offered little hope of salvation to those who wished to remain anonymous.

That’s about the potential cost of discipleship in the face of persecution. Not about conversion. It’s a test of faith, not a source of faith. That’s not what makes you a believer, but what proves you to be a believer–or not.

Responding to an alter call, where you’re surrounded by a sympathetic audience, where there’s peer pressure to go forward, where you’re rewarded by social affirmation, is precisely the opposite of what Jesus is describing-–where you will be punished for your faith, where the incentive is to openly deny your faith.

One of His favorite words of exhortation was "Come."

Which begs the question of how we come to Jesus.

The apostle Paul reminds us "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10). However one cuts it, this text links public confession to salvation. One must both believe and confess the facts of the gospel in order to be saved (v. 9). Just as the heart believes "to righteousness," so the mouth confesses "to salvation" (v. 10). . . .

i) Which illustrates the lethal deficiency of the altar call. The altar call is a deceptive half-truth. For it separates the lips from the heart. Doctrinal profession falls fatally short of saving faith unless that’s undergirded by heartfelt conviction. A “circumcised heart”–in OT usage. For instance:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me (Mt 15:8).

 

And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men" (Isa 29:13).

To be a saving profession of faith, verbal profession must be in the heart before it’s on the lips:

But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it (Deut 30:14).

Rote recitation of an orthodox creedal statement is not saving faith.

ii) Keep in mind, too, that Paul’s parallelistic structure in Rom 10:9-10 is a rhetorical device. He’s not suggesting that verbal profession is independently salvific.

Reflections on the Church in Great Britain

D.A. Carson writes about what he perceives to be the state of Christianity in the UK.

Similarly I found Carson's article "Observations of a Friend" (1995) insightful.

Although it's been a couple of years since I read it, if I recall, Carson and Woodbridge also had a bit to say on the same topic in their book Letters Along the Way (1993).

Putting this political and economic season into perspective

The WSJ carried two articles yesterday that help put the coming economic season (and related possibilities) into some biblical and historical perspective. The first, by Aryeh Spero, relates What the Bible Teaches about Capitalism. Of course it’s set in the context of the sniping among the Republican candidates, but Spero blows away the smoke and puts Capitalism into its Biblical perspective vs Socialism (which lots of people seem to want these days):

More than any other nation, the United States was founded on broad themes of morality rooted in a specific religious perspective. We call this the Judeo-Christian ethos, and within it resides a ringing endorsement of capitalism as a moral endeavor.

Regarding mankind, no theme is more salient in the Bible than the morality of personal responsibility, for it is through this that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth, good citizenship and happiness. The entitlement/welfare state is a paradigm that undermines that noble goal.

The Bible's proclamation that "Six days shall ye work" is its recognition that on a day-to-day basis work is the engine that brings about man's inner state of personal responsibility. Work develops the qualities of accountability and urgency, including the need for comity with others as a means for the accomplishment of tasks. With work, he becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be productive and that his well-being is not an entitlement. And work keeps him away from the idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and attitudes injurious to himself and those around him.

Yet capitalism is not content with people only being laborers and holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of the masses punching in and out of mammoth factories or functioning as service employees in government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism, mired as it is in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity, unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual. Because the Hebrew Bible sees us not simply as "workers" and members of the masses but, rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with individuality: our creativity.

He notes, “The Bible is not a business-school manual”, though it “does demand is honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy for those injured by life's misfortunes and charity. It also demands transparency and honesty regarding one's intentions.” All of these should be concerns in business as well as government. The real root of socialism is envy. Spero concludes, “Envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies that embrace it. Nations that throw over capitalism for socialism have made an immoral choice.

Yet another article, placed in juxtaposition with the previous one, suggests a non-envy-based way forward: The Coming Tech-Led Boom. The authors write, “we sit again on the cusp of three grand technological transformations with the potential to rival that of the past century. All find their epicenters in America: big data, smart manufacturing and the wireless revolution.”

We should also remember that more than half of the world's top 100 universities remain in America, a fact underscored by soaring foreign enrollments. Yes, other nations have fine universities, and many more will emerge over time. But again the epicenter remains here.

What should our politicians do to help usher in this new era of entrepreneurial growth? Liquid financial markets, sensible tax and immigration policy, and balanced regulations will allow the next boom to flourish. But the essential fuel is innovation. The promise resides in the tectonic technological shifts under way.

America's success isn't preordained. But the technological innovations circa 2012 are profound. They will engender sweeping changes to our society and our economy. All the forces are in place. It's just a matter of when.

The world is moving fast and changing fast. But for those of you who may be discouraged by some of the political discussions we’re seeing, both of these articles offer hope and inspiration, and a roadmap for a way forward. 

The “Early and Explosively Quick” emergence of “Early High Christology”

Larry Hurtado has posted on his blog a bit about what is the central focus of his work:

...  the emergence of “Jesus-devotion” in earliest Christianity, and in discussions with the class and with others over recent years, Wilhelm Bousset’s classic work, Kyrios Christos (ET, Nashville:  Abingdon, 1970; German 1913, 1921) naturally comes up. 

One of the clarifying/correcting points I’ve repeatedly made in recent years about Bousset’s work is that he actually supported a very early and explosively quick emergence of the worship of Jesus (in his terms, the “Kyrios-cult”).   The crucial evidence he correctly cited is the letters of Paul, which show that he took for granted the treatment of the risen Jesus as rightful co-recipient of Christian worship.  Paul doesn’t spend any time explaining or advocating Jesus-devotion; he presumes that his readers already practice it.

So, as Bousset further judged, this level of Jesus-devotion must have characterized the form of early Christian circles into which Paul was introduced after what he described as a divine revelation that re-oriented him dramatically from opponent to adherent and proponent of Jesus and early Christian faith.  In chronological terms, this means that this “Kyrios-cult” must have “erupted” (Bousset’s term) within the very first months or few years at most, for Paul’s “conversion” is by wide agreement dated within 1-3 years after Jesus’ execution…

Especially in [my 2003 book, Lord Jesus Christ:  Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans)], I’ve given reasons for judging that the Jesus-devotion reflected in Paul’s letters was likely shared by Jewish believers in Roman Palestine as well as Paul’s converts in various cities.

On … the question of whether this “high” level of Jesus-devotion arose early and suddenly or late and incrementally, Bousset was emphatically of the view that it appeared early and explosively quickly.

Arminian purgatory

http://tinyurl.com/79o8xry

Arminian amorality

For example, Hays writes, "Among many internet Arminians, you have this self-reinforcing code of misconduct -- where they automatically cover for each other." Just like what Hays did for Pike.

i) Except for the awkward little fact that I didn’t “automatically” cover for Pike. Rather, I gave a detailed explanation. And, true to form, Birch doesn’t life a finger to show what’s wrong with my explanation.

ii) It’s also the fact that I don’t automatically cover for other Calvinists. I’ve criticized the position of fellow Calvinists from time to time.

Of course, I have less occasion to disagree with my fellow Calvinists than I have with Arminians for the obvious reason that, as a Calvinist, I’m in fundamental agreement with my fellow Calvinists. But the record will show that I don’t give an automatic pass to other Calvinists–and I don’t expect anything less from them in return.

Now, why would anyone think that Calvinists are mean-spirited and nasty? Could it be because when they care called out for their ungodly behavior on the Internet, they retreat to this type of nonsense? God isn't real to Arminians? Christ isn't real to Arminians? Their teammates are real to them? Really?

i) Notice how Birch misrepresents what I said. I didn’t refer to Arminians in general. My first sentence made a narrowly-targeted claim, and the rest of my post stayed within the scope of my initial reference frame: “A moral and spiritual problem with most internet Arminians of my acquaintance…”

ii) Also observe that Birch has yet to make good on his original allegation, when he said:

What Arminians mean is that if converts are given a Bible, and they begin to read the scriptures, they typically do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism. This is very telling, in that, when a convert, without certain theological presuppositions already in place, concludes with Arminianism in some form, there appears to be an evidence of objectivity that is missing from how most people come to believe in Calvinism, a system which must be taught to believers, as the majority of Calvinist converts will admit. 

Where is Birch’s probative evidence for this sweeping claim? Why does he feel no moral obligation to educe suitable evidence to validate his allegation?

iii) And, yes, when a professing Christian doesn’t feel duty-bound to be truthful; when, in fact, he’s offended at the mere suggestion that he is morally obliged to make an honest effort know what he’s saying is true before he says it, then he’s acting as if Jesus isn’t real to him. Why does Birch think that Christian morality doesn’t apply to him? That that’s somehow beneath him? Why does he become belligerent at the suggestion that when he makes a factual accusation, he ought to have the facts to back up his accusation? And why do his approving Arminian commenters rubberstamp his behavior?

To judge by most internet Arminians I deal with, the cardinal rule of Arminian ethics is that Arminians can break the rules. When Arminians like Birch act as though they’re not answerable to God to be truthful, then, indeed, God doesn’t seem to be a living reality in what they think, say, and do.

How about this: God isn't real to Steve Hays. Christ isn't real to Steve Hays. His teammates are real to him, and nothing else. And when his Calvinist friends apostatize from the Faith, like Michael Sudduth, all Hays truly cares about is defending Calvinism, much more so than Christianity.

One thing you can say about Birch–when he’s dishonest, at least he’s consistently dishonest.

How did I respond to Sudduth’s apostasy (or backsliding, as the case may be)? Did I respond by defending Calvinism? No.

I specifically responded with an ongoing series of posts critiquing Hare Krishna. It was actually an Arminian (Richard Coords) who tried to derail the analysis into a debate over Calvinism.

As for defending Christianity, consider the number of posts I’ve done that are labeled anti-Trinitarianism, canonics, Christology, Darwinism, Hector Avalos, hell, inerrancy, miracles, theodicy, historical Jesus, Peter Enns, Richard Carrier, The Infidel Delusion, village atheist, etc.

Consider the book reviews I’ve done on Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens, John Loftus, and Richard Dawkins.

Consider my review of The Empty Tomb. Consider the review I coauthored with other Tbloggers of The Christian Delusion. Not to mention another massive review (in the pipeline) I coauthored with Jason Engwer) of The End of Christianity.

I invite Birch to compare what he’s written in defense of Christianity with what I’ve written.

William BirchJan 30, 2012 09:53 AM

Hays is high on philosophy, inept at theology, and has, for the last four years I've been reading his posts, not yet shown evidence that he is regenerate. I pray that changes before it's everlastingly too late.

Good thing to know that Arminians aren’t mean and nasty like those mean ol’ Calvinists. 

Krishna & Christ: part 2

http://wincorduan.bravejournal.com/entry/81935

HT: Patrick Chan

The problem with Arminians

A moral and spiritual problem with most internet Arminians of my acquaintance is their single-minded obsession with Calvinism. They are more obsessed with Calvinism than many Calvinists. That’s just about the only thing they ever blog about. It’s all about Calvinism, all the time. Their identity is essentially comparative. 

And the problem with that myopic orientation is that when you define yourself and judge yourself by another, when it’s always the same target, when the comparison is invariably invidious, then that’s bound to foster an insular, complacent, self-righteous attitude. It disables any self-critical sense. If you always measure yourself by your opponent, and if whole the point of that exercise is to prove to yourself that your opponent never measures up, then that’s morally and spiritual corrosive. It’s a recipe for spiritual pride. It hardens you to criticism from outsiders. That’s automatically discounted.

This is less true of Arminian Bible scholars because they don’t incessantly compare themselves to Calvinists. Rather, they spend most of their time exegeting Scripture. That, of course, sometimes draws them into the Arminian/Calvinist debate, but it’s not-all consuming. I also think that’s why Nick Norelli is head-and-shoulders above the average Arminian blogger. He has interests outside of the Arminian/Calvinist debate. Same thing with Wintery Knight. 

Tailgation

Fabricating Hays

Is it not comical that Calvinists like Steve Hays demand "polling data . . . sociological studies . . . [and] scientific stats, to document this 'very telling' claim" that new Christian converts, when given a Bible, conclude with non-Calvinist theology?

Yet, his Calvinist friend, Peter Pike, wrote that "More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification" without the slightest bit of "polling data," "sociological studies," or "scientific stats" to substantiate his claim.

I suppose that's fine with Hays, since Calvinists like him are not interested in keeping their own friends consistent or accountable. It's just Calvinists quoting other Calvinists quoting other Calvinists. Yet somehow that morphs into hard fact.

"Fabricate the evidence you need," as Hays stated. Do you think there is something about Calvinism that fosters this capacity for self-deception?

http://www.williamwbirch.com/2012/01/fabricating-hays.html

William Birch Jan 28, 2012 04:19 PM

SLW,

Oh, you are certainly correct. I usually don't take the time to respond to him. Usually, I just shake my head, sometimes laugh, and carry on with my life. Others times, however, I want others to know -- including his little posse -- what a complete hypocrite with double standards he tends to expose himself to be.

i) Notice Birch’s bait-n-switch. This is what Birch originally said:

What Arminians mean is that if converts are given a Bible, and they begin to read the scriptures, they typically do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism. This is very telling, in that, when a convert, without certain theological presuppositions already in place, concludes with Arminianism in some form, there appears to be an evidence of objectivity that is missing from how most people come to believe in Calvinism, a system which must be taught to believers, as the majority of Calvinist converts will admit.

In my response to Birch, I didn’t make a similar claim to the contrary. I didn’t make any comparative statistical claims about Calvinists and Arminians. I didn’t fabricate evidence.

So how does my response to Birch make me a “complete hypocrite with double standards”? Since I didn’t do the same thing I fault Birch (or SEA) for, there was nothing morally inconsistent about my reply.

ii) What Birch is attempting to do is deploy a wedge strategy. But what about Peter Pike?

a) To begin with, Peter was completely upfront about his source of information. He made an overtly qualified observation:

I can think of countless individuals who have converted from Arminianism to become Calvinists—indeed, I am one such individual myself. However, I only personally know one (Billy Birch) and can only think of just a few others, such as Clark Pinnock, who have gone from Calvinism to Arminianism (and Pinnock doesn’t really fit, since he then continued on far to the left of Arminianism, embracing Open Theism). This is not to say that I don’t know of some former Calvinists; just that Calvinists do not tend to convert to Arminianism. Instead, the former Calvinists who I know (other than Birch) are now almost all atheists, with a liberal Metropolitan Church goer (having embraced homosexuality), two Roman Catholics (a married couple), and now, with Dr. Sudduth, a Hindu too. Now, I’m sure that part of this is due to the circles I run in. I know more Calvinists to begin with, so I’m sure some such as Billy Birch would know of more former Calvinists who are now Arminian.

So Peter said all along that he impression was based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. By contrast, Birch’s own sweeping claim doesn’t contain those caveats. So Peter’s claim is not equivalent to Birch’s. Peter is explicitly testifying to his personal observation.

b) Keep in mind, too, the context of Peter’s statement. What was he responding to? As he said at the time:

It does bring to mind other conversions, however. I have read comments from some of the Arminians at SEA who have said…

So he was responding to anecdotal claims. Arminians quoting other Arminians quoting other Arminians. So he was merely responding to the Arminian claimants on their own turf.

How is that hypocritical? That’s not a double standard. To the contrary, that’s reapplying the standard of the Arminian claimant to the Arminian.

iii) But let’s shift to the deeper issues. Birch and other Arminians are making a statistical claim about how Calvinists become Calvinists in contrast to how Arminians become Arminians.

My objection was simply that if you’re going to make a claim like that, you ought to furnish suitable evidence to back up your claim. In other words, you should have good reason to know what you say is true before you say it.

Yet Birch thinks that’s “comical”; “Lame-o”; “I laughed after I rolled my eyes ; )”

So, according to Birch, the expectation that Arminians should make a good faith effort to be truthful is “comical,” “lame-o,” and laughable, and eyerolling.

And Birch receives support from Arminian pastors like Rick Frueh and Stephen L. Winters who commented approvingly on his post.

What does it say about the moral discernment of Arminians, including Arminian pastors, who don’t think Christians have an elementary duty to be factual and honest?

iv) How can we account for this ungodly attitude? Arminians who behave this way act as if God doesn’t exist, as if Jesus isn’t real. What’s real to them is their team, and the rival team. Arminians are real to them. Calvinists are real to them. The competitive dynamic is real to them.

This accounts for court preachers like Rick Frueh and Stephen L. Winters. The team chaplain roots for his own team. They preach universal love from the pulpit, but only love their own kind in practice.

Their perspective is entirely horizontal. Manward. The vertical viewpoint, the Godward perspective, is completely out of sight.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Steve Hays is a complete hypocrite with double standards. How does that exempt Birch from his Christian duty to be truthful?

Imagine if Birch was standing before the judgment seat of Christ. If he pointed an accusing finger at me, would that excuse his own conduct? Will he defend himself by telling Christ: “Lord, since Hays is a complete hypocrite, I don't need to be truthful.”

Among many internet Arminians, you have this self-reinforcing code of misconduct–where they automatically cover for each other. God isn’t real to them. Christ isn’t real to them. Their teammates are real to them. It’s all about in-group loyalty.

They aren’t living in the felt presence of God. Rather, they inhabit the Arminian sports bar. Their very own Tailgate Nation. The team is their religion. Like rabid fans with body paint.