Triablogue

Saturday, August 24, 2013

On the one hand, many moderate to liberal Bible scholars don't take the longevity of the prediluvians seriously. They think that must be hyperbolic or legendary, since humans can't really live that long.

On the other hand, it's become a scholarly fad to reject dualism for physicalism. To ground eternal life in the resurrection of the body rather than the immortality of the soul.

But if embodied humans can't even live for 1000 years, how can they live forever? Do scholars who doubt the longevity of the prediluvians really believe in the resurrection of the body?

East of Eden

http://butthesethingsarewritten.blogspot.com/2013/08/east-of-eden.html

Friday, August 23, 2013

Very good

http://butthesethingsarewritten.blogspot.com/2013/08/very-good.html

Dan Wallace on cessationism

Since some readers had problems with my first link had problems, let's try again with a different link:

https://bible.org/seriespage/introduction-whos-afraid-holy-spirit-uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

Is “Called to Communion” cannibalizing “Catholic Answers”?

I got the following email yesterday:

Maybe the more sophisticated of the Catholic Answers readers have migrated to CTC in search of something that’s at least more well-reasoned (and doesn’t beg for money?)

Who knows, maybe Catholic Answers will go out of business?

“One God almighty” in Irenaeus

Over at Old Life, Darryl Hart continues to hammer away at “the Callers” (Jason Stellman and the “Called to Communion” gang); meanwhile, an atheistic chap who goes by the name of “CD-Host” is taking great interest in the discussion for some reason, wasting what little is left of his pitiable naturalistic life trying to persuade the Reformed brethren that they too should become little atheists.

I responded to one of his comments:

MacArthurite preterists

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/08/showing-spirit-by-da-carson.html

Notice the position which Frank imputes to critics of MacArthurite cessationists. Notice how he frames the issue. How he assigns the burden of proof.

1996 was a very good year for the Charismatic, since that is the year Wayne Grudem came out with his book, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? However: I have been recently told that this book is actually far inferior to D.A. Carson's book, and refuting it is rather a pedestrian effort. The real academic cherry is to prove that Carson may be toppled from his as yet unassailable position because let's face it: D.A. Carson.
So in 1996, Carson also published a lengthy treatise on 1 Cor 12-14, entitled Showing the Spirit. Over the last 3 weeks, it has found new life among those who demand the necessity of the apostolic spiritual gifts, and the word on the street is that this book has never properly been reviewed or refuted by anyone of a Cessationist disposition, therefore Check and Mate: start speaking in tongues. Roll into that the fact that the book is still in print (in Kindle format no less), and that Carson has never offered a revision, and perhaps the rest of us -- the ones who think that miraculous signs and wonders are not pedestrian but exceptional, and that God is not a blatherer who predates Twitter with his affinity for daily murmurings but in fact speaks first through the Prophets and then through His Son -- ought to simply apologize for our impertinence for raising an eyebrow, and the occasional meat chub.
…I think what Carson does for/to charismaticism in this book is far worse for them than the people waving this book around would admit (methinks: if they had read it themselves).
One thing Carson refuses to do is to settle the question of continuation vs. cessation.

The last hope for the modern Charismatic is Carson's treatment of what Paul means by the relationship between "perfection" and the "imperfect." Carson concludes that Paul must mean that all things will be made perfect at the parousia -- that is, the return of Christ. Therefore, Carson is saying, the sign gifts will not cease until the return of Christ. He says it this way:

"Two conclusions follow from this exposition. The first is obvious: there does not appear to be biblical warrant, at least from this chapter, for banning contemporary tongues and prophecies on the grounds that Scripture anticipates their early demise. This does not mean, of course, that everything that passes for prophecy or the gift of tongues is genuine. I shall say more about the nature of these gifts in the next chapter.

After all his justifications of so-called spirit gifts today, Carson lays out quite a devastating historical critique of such a thing:

"What can be safely concluded from the historical evidence? First, there is enough evidence that some form of “charismatic” gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration.

Here's my rebuttal: if this is the best you can do -- that is, a book that agrees with any tenable natural reading of 1 Cor 12-14, leaves open the door to the possibility that daGifts still exist, but somehow downplays the entire operation for the sake of good order, maturity, and the defining virtue of Love -- then you had better reassess what you think you're trying to convince the rest of us to agree with.
If this is your go-to book, explain to me how it justifies any of the things Dan and I have been objecting to for the last 8 weeks.
And: keep it civil. Those who simply want to cast me off as a bomb-throwing waste of time should simply go do something else rather than waste their time, and mine.

Now, let's compare Frank's imputation with how I myself have actually stated my position:

If you're going to make an honest case against charismatic theology, you need to critique the best representatives as well as the worst representatives. And you need to critique arguments. It's morally and intellectually incumbent on you to engage the best exegetical case for charismatic theology, viz. Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power; The Gift and the Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today; Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.
Likewise, you need to engage important mediating positions, viz. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14.And this brings us back to the burden of proof. Dan's cessationism involves a universal negative. That means he's assuming a very high burden of proof. For it would only take a single exception, just one credible counterexample, to disprove his ironclad cessationism. All you'd need is one bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker between the death of St. John and today, to disprove his contention.
iv) There are credible reported cases of modern xenoglossy. Cf. Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Baker 2012), 829. So that would be consistent with continuationism. Denying cessationism doesn't entail the belief that every Christian throughout church history must be a miracle worker. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.
The problem with Fred's analogy is whether a position that's espoused by scholars of the caliber of Craig Keener, Gordon Fee, Graham Twelftree, and Max Turner (among others) can be honestly compared to Ghost Hunters.
i) I'm curious as to how Carson got classified as a "continuationist/cessationist." This is the second time I've run across that designation applied to Carson from a MacArthurite. Yet in his contribution to Power Religion, Carson was extremely critical of Third Wave theology (a la John Wimber and the Vineyard Church)–as he understood it. So why do some MacArthurites (e.g. Fred Butler, Nathan Busenitz) classify him as a continuationist/charismatic rather than a critic thereof? This appears to be a legend that's taking on a life of its own.ii) Speaking for myself, I haven't said the MacArthurites need to engage Piper or Grudem. I typically mention Fee and Keener. I've also mentioned Carson, as an important representative of a mediating position. And I've made passing reference to two other distinguished charismatic scholars: Graham Twelftree and Max Turner.
v) If glossolalia isn't xenoglossy, then we can't say if modern tongues in the same as Corinthian tongues. We have no recordings of 1C Corinthian tongues to furnish a comparative sample.
vi) By the same token, if glossolalia isn't xenoglossy, then it may resist linguistic analysis. It may be incommensurable with human language. You also have the code language explanation of Vern Poythress.
Now, I happen to think the modern practice of speaking in tongues is generally bogus. It's usually the result of coaching or crowd psychology.
Put another way, what's the logical alternative to cessationism? Dan seems to think the logical alternative is a regular occurrence of miracles, miracles of a certain kind occurring at a certain rate. But that's not the logical alternative to cessationism. Logically, the alternative to cessationism doesn't select or predict for any particular outcome. Minimally, it simply allows for exceptions to Dan's universal negative. These could be few or many. Frequent or infrequent. Clustered or isolated.
Moreover, why is is necessary to predict what kinds of miracles may or may not occur in the course of church history? Why do we have to stake out a position on that in advance of the facts? Why can't we take a wait-and-see attitude? Is that something we need to prescribe ahead of time? Why can't we discover what God is prepared to do?
The debate between cessationists and charismatics is typically polarized between two absolute, opposing positions:i) On the one hand, cessationists take a proscriptive position. The "spiritual gifts" don't continue at all during the church age. There are no genuine Christian healers, prophets, exorcists, or thaumaturges during the church age. God may still work miracles, but not through human agents.ii) On the other hand, charismatics take a prescriptive position. The "spiritual gifts" ought to continue throughout the church age. The "spiritual gifts" are available to every Christian. Every Christian ought to have one or more of the "spiritual gifts."Both sides hammer the Bible to squeeze out their position. Both sides standardize the divine modus operandi. iii) I'd simply point out that, logically speaking, that's a false dichotomy. For these two options don't exhaust the logical alternatives. On the face of it, there's a mediating position. A Christian could say the NT is open-ended on the status of the "spiritual gifts." It doesn't prescribe or proscribe what God is prepared to do in the future. It's largely silent about the course of church history in that respect. Maybe God raises up a healer at a particular time and place, but doesn't do so on a regular basis. Perhaps we don't know in advance if Christians can still exorcise demoniacs. Maybe that's something we have to discover. Maybe God is not as predictable as we'd like to make him. Perhaps he resists our efforts to domesticate his field of action. Now, a logical alternative may not be correct. It's something we have to test against Scripture and church history. But this rather obvious mediating position seems to be totally overlooked by both sides.

i) If you compare Frank's characterization of what we say with what we actually say, Frank's characterization is a tissue of blatant falsehoods from start to finish. I never made the exclusive claims for Carson that Frank imputes to critics of MacArthurite cessationism. I never placed the burden of proof where Frank alleges that critics of his position assign it.

Now, Frank doesn't name his targets. It's quite possible that his "rebuttal" wasn't meant to single me out in particular. However, it's hard to avoid the assumption that he's including me in his diatribe. I hardly think he's talking about every critic except me. But if I'm one of his unnamed targets, then his characterization of my position is systematically false.

I just wonder why it's so hard for Frank to be truthful. Frank may not be a theoretical antinomian, but to judge by his hit piece, Frank is a practical antinomian. In practice, Frank feels no moral obligation to truthfully represent what the critics actually say.

Now let's make a few substantive observations:

ii) In his chapter on 1 Cor 13, Carson says (quoting from my 1987 edition):

If this point is located at the parousia, then there is nothing in this passage to preclude a valid gift of tongues or prophecy today. This would not necessarily mean, of course, that each contemporary claim of a particular gift is valid. Nor would it necessarily mean that a charismatic gift or gifts could not have been withdrawn earlier than the parousia. But it does mean that Scripture offers no shelter to those who wish to rule out all claims of charismatic gifts today (70).
None of this, of course, suggests Paul is interested in establishing the ideal relative frequency of prophecy in the church; nor have we yet mentioned historical objections that argue the gifts of prophecy and tongues actually did cease. At the moment, such matters are irrelevant. In these verses Paul establishes the end of the age as the time when these gifts must finally be abolished (72).
Under this [third] interpretation, there is no reason why gifts such as prophecy and tongues cannot be thought to continue in principle until the parouisa. In my view, the third interpretation is largely right and may be supported and slightly modified by the following considerations (73).
Two conclusions follow from this exposition. The first is obvious: there does not appear to be biblical warrant, at least from this chapter [1 Cor 13], for banning contemporary tongues and prophecies on the grounds that Scripture anticipates their early demise. This does not mean, of course, that everything that passes for prophecy or the gift of tongues is genuine (75).

iii) Now, if Carson's interpretation of 1 Cor 13 is correct, then that automatically falsifies cessationism on exegetical grounds. Paul allows for what MacArthurites disallows. And observe that in his "review," Frank doesn't take issue with Carson's exegesis. Frank doesn't show, or even attempt to show, that Carson's exegesis is mistaken.

Yet cessationism posits a universal negative with respect to postapostolic era charismata. And it only takes one exception to falsify that blanket denial. What cessationism predicts for is diametrically opposed to what 1 Cor 13 predicts for. Cessationism predicts for the total discontinuance of any and all charismata after the apostolic age whereas 1 Cor 13 predicts for their total discontinuance at the end of the church age. If anything, Carson has understated the problem which this text poses for cessationists.

iv) So this generates a dilemma for MacArthurite cessationists. If they insist that church history in fact falsifies the reoccurrence of the charismatic to any degree, then that logically commits them to saying that church history falsifies Paul's expectation to the contrary. They can salvage their cessationism by ditching inerrancy.

One other fallback position would be to renounce their premillennialism for preterism. They could then say the charismata terminated in the 1C because Christ returned in the 1C, appearances to the contrary not withstanding.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Hopeless Matzke

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html

The cure that killed the patient

http://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/08/21/the-cure-that-killed-the-patient-or-sorry-zahnd-marcionism-isnt-a-better-option/

From first day to fourth day

http://butthesethingsarewritten.blogspot.com/2013/08/from-first-day-to-fourth-day.html

Ben Stein Nails Piers Morgan

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/21/the-oklahoma-story

Now, will Mr. Obama get on TV and say that Chris Lane could have been his son or anyone’s son, that the real race problem in this country is not racism against blacks, but an astounding epidemic of violence among blacks, especially black youth? Will the media superstars start talking about the sickening worship of violence in the rap culture? Will anyone ever tell the truth again? Or is the fear of even a hint of an accusation of racism going to make us keep our blinders on?

There are virtually no murders of blacks by whites (not none — just very few). There are thousands of murders of blacks by blacks each year, far more in one year than the Ku Klux Klan ever did. Will anyone ever tell the truth again? Yes, Pat Buchanan will. But anyone else?

And can a society which lies to itself about its most basic problems survive? This is a crisis. Absent parents. The gang control of thought. The scourge of drugs. These have created a catastrophe for the black community. That is an immense part of the youth of this nation. Occasionally the flood jumps its bounds, goes over the river banks, and kills a white person — and then it’s new — but we blame it on guns. Our media and our leaders just cannot tell the truth.

We really are doomed in so many ways it’s blood curdling. I think I’ll just stay here in North Idaho.

Cessationism and selective standards

Dan Phillips and Fred Butler like to use Acts 4:16 as their paradigm-case of what a modern miracle has to be like to qualify as a genuine miracle. But there are obvious problems with their criterion.

i) The Bible contains many types of miracles. It's arbitrary to single out this particular miracle as the paradigm.

ii) Apropos (i), not only is that arbitrary as a standard of comparison for modern miracles, it's arbitrary in reference to Biblical miracles, given the variety of Biblical miracles.

iii) Apropos (ii), Biblical miracles are not all of a kind. Even Warfield, a classic cessationist, distinguishes between miracles of healing, miracles of speech, miracles of knowledge, and miracles of power. For instance, Acts contains revelatory dreams and visions. But those aren't directly comparable to a miracle of healing–are they?

iv) Apropos (i-iii), in their effort to screen out modern miracles, Fred and Dan have a criterion that screens out many Biblical miracles. For there are Biblical miracles which don't "measure up" (as it were) to their chosen yardstick. For instance:

a) Philip was an exorcist (Acts 8:6-13). But is that an "Acts 4:16-level miracle"?

b) What about the burning bush (Exod 3)? Surely that's a paradigmatic miracle. It involves both a nature miracle and an angelic apparition. Yet it's an essentially private miracle, for Moses is the only witness to this event. Likewise, the fate of Lot's wife was only witnessed by Lot and his daughters. And we don't have their testimony. We only have the testimony of the narrator.

What about the talking donkey (Num 22)? Surely that's a remarkable miracle. That involves both a nature miracle and an angelic apparition. Yet it's an essentially private miracle, for Balaam is the only witness to this event. And we don't even have his own testimony. We only have the testimony of the narrator.

Other examples include the rod of Moses changing into a snake (Exod 4), Elijah fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17), the widow's food replenished (1 Kgs 17), her son revived (1 Kgs 17), and the Translation of Elijah (2 Kgs 2). We could add the bears that attack Elijah's hecklers (2 Kgs 2), Naaman's cure (2 Kgs 5), and the blinding of Elymas (Acts 13). There are very few eyewitnesses to these events. In many cases we're dependent on the secondhand report of the omniscient narrator.

c) Keep in mind, too, that many of these are miracles of power. But how is a miracle of power directly analogous to a miracle of knowledge? Take Joseph's premonitory dream (Gen 37), or Pharaoh's premonitory dreams (Gen 41). Are those "Acts 4:16-level" miracles? How do you measure a miracle of knowledge by a miracle of healing? What's the common denominator?

d) Or take glossolalia. Fred and Dan construe all cases of glossolalia in Acts and 1 Corinthians as xenoglossy. But even if we accept their disputatious identification, is xenoglossy an "Acts 4:16-level miracle"? In what respect is xenoglossy analogous to healing?

e) Or take the apparitions of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. Is that an "Acts 4:16-level miracle"? If so, in what respect?

Fred and Dan aren't really using a Scriptural standard, for their singular example from Acts filters out many other Biblical examples. If they were really using the Bible as their template, they'd say that modern supernatural claims must generally correspond to Biblical supernatural examples. Their sample would include all types of Biblical miracles as a reference class.

New Job

In March, I made the announcement that I had lost my job. It’s been an instructive six months for me, in several ways, and at another time, I’d like to share a bit more about how things all came about. But for now, I wanted to let you know that I’ve gotten a new job.

A small (but technical) consulting firm, 4Thought Marketing, has hired me as a project manager and account manager. They are an Oracle/Eloqua partner and they offer some of the more technical, data-intensive services surrounding Eloqua (a fairly hot “marketing automation”, or “MA” technology), including data integration services, data cleansing, and an overall “health-check” of Eloqua data and operations.

I’ll be their contact person for all Eloqua users in the eastern US. And so if you happen to be an Eloqua or “marketing automation” person, please feel free to get in touch with me.

Marketing automation is a genuine growth industry in our economy. One observer has commented that while some 20% of companies were using a marketing automation platform in 2012, 50% are projected to use one in 2015. That’s a significant growth rate in the next few years. Even if the estimate is off a bit, things still promise to be on the upswing.

Plus, there’s been quite a bit of consolidation in the industry. For example, Oracle purchased Eloqua this year for about $870 million. Salesforce.com purchased Exact Target (and the MA platform Pardot) for more than $2 billion. And Adobe (makers of Photoshop and others) purchased Neolane.

All of these are positioning themselves as leaders in the “data management” or “database marketing” fields. I’m just very happy to have landed, for now, in an area of the economy where there is a bit of a tailwind.

I’m glad these last six months are behind me, and I’m looking forward to a period of fruitful and useful employment with 4Thought Marketing.

Thank you for your prayers and encouragement during this difficult time.

What is a miracle?

"What is a miracle?" (pdf) by Daniel P. Sulmasy.

NB: I don't agree with everything in the paper.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Animals In The Afterlife

Greg Koukl recently posted a video on the subject. He makes some good points, but I largely disagree with him. Some commenters there made some good points in response, and I added a reply of my own. I address the issue in more depth in the thread here.

Introduction to Genesis

http://butthesethingsarewritten.blogspot.com/2013/08/introduction-to-genesis.html

Pages