The Islamification of the SBC

Paige Patterson has ignited a firestorm by admitting a Muslim to SWBTS. One issue is whether he has the authority to do so. Does this violate SBC policy?

But there's a substantive issue. A basic problem with admitting Muslims to a Christian seminary is that Muslim students will demand accommodations to their religious sensibilities. It becomes a way for them to destroy Christianity from the inside by infiltrating and gutting Christian institutions. The presence of Muslim students will eventually dilute the curriculum and Christian identity of the school. Muslim students will take offense a Christian prayer, Christian worship (i.e. chapel), Christian theology (i.e. the person and work of Christ), Christian missiology (i.e. evangelizing Muslims), Christian church history courses (i.e. about Islam), and Christian comparative religion courses (i.e. about Islam). It will have a chilling effect on what professors feel free to teach. 

Why the Virgin Birth?

Why was Jesus virginally conceived? On the face of it, the Incarnation doesn't require a virginal conception. 

Mind you, Christianity is a historic religion, so what matters is what God has actually chosen to do rather than unrealized possibilities and hypothetical alternatives. 

If Jesus was born of two parents, he'd seem to be merely human. An earthling. From this world. He began to exist.

But that's a half-truth. The Virgin Birth illustrates the preexistence of the Son. The Son didn't come into existence. He's not from this world. He comes into the world from the outside. From the divine side of the ledger.

Because he has a human mother, that secures his humanity. But the absence of a human father is a sign that God takes the place of human paternity. So that illustrates the divine Sonship of Christ. 

Although the Virgin Birth isn't entailed by the Incarnation, it dramatizes the Incarnation. It does justice to both the humanity and divinity of Christ. It betokens the preexistence and divinity of the Son. 

The activity of sanctification

"The activity of sanctification" by Paul Helm.

The Virgin Birth Was Widely Accepted Early On

I want to repost something I wrote in another thread, in case it would be helpful to anybody who missed it there:

Would progressive creation undermine the order of nature?

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/05/would_progressive_creation_und.html

Science & Human Origins

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/science_and_hum_2061191.html

Attesting the Virgin Birth

One popular objection to the Virgin Birth is that only two Gospels mention it. By way of reply:

i) Not only do only two Gospels record the Virgin Birth, but only two Gospels even have nativity accounts. And it's not coincidental that the only two Gospels which record the Virgin Birth are the only two Gospels with nativity accounts. Since Mark and John don't even have nativity accounts, it's hard to see how they'd fit the Virgin Birth into their narratives. Conversely, since Matthew and Luke have nativity accounts, it's not surprising in that connection that they mention the Virgin Birth. But if a Gospel doesn't even have a general account regarding the childhood of Christ, why would we expect a it to have an account of the Virgin Birth in particular? 

Therefore, I think the presence of that specific detail in Matthew and Luke, as well as its absence in Mark and John, is hardly suspect.

ii) In addition, both Matthew and Luke have special reasons to include the Virgin Birth. In the case of Matthew, this would be of interest to his Jewish readers, not just because of the Isa 7:14 oracle, but more generally because of other OT figures whose conception was supernaturally mediated.

In the case of Luke, it's often thought that Mary was one of his sources. If so, it's only natural that he mentions the Virgin Birth.

Luke in also interested in parallels between Jesus and John the Baptist, including divine intervention regarding their respective conceptions. 

iii) Christians know about the Virgin Birth because we've read Matthew and Luke. But why think that would have been widely known absent Matthew and Luke? Mary and Joseph are the only two individuals with direct knowledge of Virgin Birth. 

iv) Even if Mark and John recorded the Virgin Birth, skeptics of the Virgin Birth are skeptical of Mark and John. They think Mark's fascination with miracles and exorcisms reflects legendary embellishment, and they think John's high Christology reflects legendary embellishment. 

v) If Paul mentioned the Virgin Birth, they'd discount that because they don't think Paul had any firsthand knowledge of the historical Jesus. And even if he did, that would be towards the end of Christ's life. His public ministry. Not the beginning of his life.

vi) In principle, if James and Jude mentioned the Virgin Birth, that would be significant, coming from close relatives of Jesus. But skeptics of the Virgin Birth typically think the letters of James and Jude are pseudonymous. So even if they mentioned the Virgin Birth, that would be discounted. 

Indeed, skeptics of the Virgin Birth generally use reported miracles as evidence for dating the Gospels late. So the argument is circular. 

Peter Enns on the Virgin Birth

Commenting on Jerry Walls' Facebook page, Peter Enns said:

• Peter Enns I highly recommend Andrew Lincoln's recent "Born of a Virgin?" It deals at great length with this very issue from a position of both faith and commitment to historical criticism.
  
  
  Luke Van Horn Prof. Enns, does Lincoln's book address the question I asked, about why some people seem to think that denial of the virgin birth would require rethinking Jesus' deity?
  
  
  Peter Enns Yes. I think you would agree with what he says. He also tackles head on why only 2 Gospels mention the virginal conception, Paul never hints at it, and the reasons the early church had for holding to it as it did (based on a misconception--pardon the pun) of human reproduction.

Teresa of Avila

Tim Challies has been doing a series on false teachers. Of course, that's provocative. It rubs some people the wrong way. But, in principle, it's a useful series. 

However, he got himself into a bit of a bind in his post on Teresa of Avila:

http://reflectionandchoice.org/2014/05/15/having-standards-makes-you-a-troll/

There are two problems with his post:

i) He lifted his key supporting material whole cloth from a Wikipedia article, without attribution.

ii) However, I don't think that's the most serious problem. The deeper problem is not that he failed to credit his source, but the source itself. If he's going to critique Teresa of Avila, he needs to do better research. Wikipedia is not a serious resource for something like this.

iii) That doesn't mean Wikipedia is always bad. Problem is, Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable, so unless you're already knowledgeable about the subject, you're in no position to evaluate any particular Wikipedia entry. 

iv) That doesn't mean Wikipedia is useless. Sometimes you can follow up on the references given in the Wikipedia article. Indeed, it's prudent to double-check the references, when that's possible.

v) Some commenters have chided Challies for failing to read the primary sources. Teresa's actual writings. But I wouldn't say that's necessary. The problem is not with his reliance on secondary sources, but the quality of his secondary sources. (His post on Muhammad suffers from the same superficiality.) 

No doubt there are many excellent scholarly expositions and interpretations of her mystical experience. And to some extent it would be misleading to go straight to her books, for to properly understand the material you need some background information about 16C Spain, the Counter-Reformation, &c. 

Problem is that Challies thought he could wing it with minimal study. But he's a high-profile blogger and book reviewer for World Magazine. If he's going to post an assessment of someone as famous as Teresa of Avila, he must be prepared to make the necessary investment. 

Speaking for myself, when I read about Teresa's experiences, I can't help wondering if this doesn't reflect the sublimated frustration of a woman who lacked the normal emotional fulfillment of a wife and mother. This was her outlet. How much of this is a projection of her basic emotional deprivations? 

Frankly, it looks like he was using Teresa of Avila as a pretext to bash mysticism and lobby for cessationism. Once again, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. I'm highly dubious about cultivating mystical encounters. It's dangerous. You open yourself to who-knows-what. Be careful what you invite inside. It's easier to invite something than disinvite something.

But mysticism is a huge field. It's not something you can treat off-the-cuff. Here are some standard treatments:

Winfried Corduan, Mysticism: An Evangelical Option?

Nelson Pike, Mystic Union: An Essay in the Phenomenology of Mysticism

Joseph Maréchal, Studies in the Psychology of the Mystics

Epidemic?

Center for Disease Control: Syphilis resurgence among gay men ‘major public health concern’:

According to [a new report from the Atlanta-based Center for Disease Control (CDC)], “During 2005-2013, the number of primary and secondary syphilis cases reported each year in the United States nearly doubled, from 8,724 to 16,663; the annual rate increased from 2.9 to 5.3 cases per 100,000 population.” …“men … accounting for 91.1% of all … syphilis cases in 2013.” Most of the increases came from men who have sex with men(MSM), which were responsible for 77% of cases in 2009 but 83.9% in 2012, what the report calls “the vast majority of male… syphilis cases.” The report warns that the numbers in the new report are likely far less than the true number because only 34 states and the District of Columbia fully report sex of sex partners. The report raises a particular concern about what it calls “co-infection rates.” “There are reported rates of 50%-70% HIV co-infection among MSM infected with primary or secondary syphilis…”

‘The notion of co-infection follows closely a report just published by independent researcher Dale O’Leary in the prestigious Linacre Quarterly of the Catholic Medical Association, found at the bottom of this article. O’Leary reports that researchers understand the problems of health among MSM are now so vast and interrelated they are considered a “syndemic,” a linked set of health issues involving two or more afflictions acting in concert within a specific population. According to the medical literature, among MSM these would include diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV but also such pathologies as partner violence, drug abuse, and psychological disorders. Treating a single part of this puzzle would not solve the whole problem.

‘The HIV/AIDS infection rate alone is bleak. From 2008 to 2010 the new HIV infection rate grew 12%, from 26,700 to 29,800 cases reported. One in five sexually active MSM carry the AIDS virus, but nearly half of those don’t even know it. However, HIV/AIDS is not the only problem, as the new CDC report on syphilis makes clear. According to the Linacre paper, “MSM are far more likely to be diagnosed with other STDs, some of which have become resistant to commonly used antibiotics.”’

Keep in mind that when you see numbers that talk about "5.3 cases per 100,000 population", that's 100,000 of the total population. The concentration of numbers is much higher, at least by a factor of 10, because the number of homosexual men is a relatively small portion of the "total population".

HT: Robert Gagnon

De novo creation

Because Gen 1-2 conflicts with universal common descent, some "progressive evangelicals" contend that Gen 1-2 doesn't really teach that all humans descend from Adam and Eve. That's just how conservatives or "fundamentalists" interpret Genesis. Their literalistic interpretation.

In that regard, it's refreshing to see an outspoken theistic evolutionist admit that the traditional interpretation is correct. He simply disregards the authority of Gen 1-2. So this is not a question of interpretation, but inspiration. 

Did the apostle Paul believe that Adam was a real person? Yes, well of course he did. Paul was a first-century AD Jew and like every Jewish person around him, he accepted the historicity of Adam. In fact, he places Adam’s sin and death alongside God’s gifts of salvation and resurrection from the dead through Jesus. In Romans 5:12 and 15, he writes that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. . . . For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and gift that came by the grace of the One Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” Paul also claims in 1 Corinthians 15:21 that “since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a Man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 

It is understandable why most Christians believe that Adam was a real historical person. This is exactly what Scripture states in both the Old and New Testaments.  

http://biologos.org/blog/was-adam-a-real-person-part-iii  

Like every account of origins, Genesis 2 is etiological. It offers an explanation for the existence of things and beings known to the Holy Spirit-inspired writer and his readers—vegetation, land animals, birds, and humans. And typical of ancient accounts of origins, the Lord God created these de novo; that is, they were made quickly and completely formed. But Genesis 2 focuses mainly on the origin of humanity. 

http://biologos.org/blog/was-adam-a-real-person-part-ii 

De novo creation is the ancient conceptualization of origins found in the Bible. This term is made up of the Latin words de meaning “from” and novus “new.” Stated more precisely, it is a view of origins that results in things and beings that are brand new. This type of creative activity is quick and complete. It appears in a majority of ancient creation accounts and it involves a divine being/s who act/s rapidly through a series of dramatic interventions, resulting in cosmological structures (sun, moon, stars) and living organisms (plants, animals, humans) that are mature and fully formed. 

Considering the limited scientific evidence available to ancient peoples, this conceptualization of origins was perfectly logical. As with all origins accounts, including those held by us today, the ancients asked basic etiological questions (Greek aitia: the cause, the reason for this). These included: Where did these things or beings come from? Why are they this way? Who or what is responsible for their origin? There was no reason for ancient peoples to believe the universe was billions of years old, and they were unaware that living organisms changed over eons of time as reflected in the fossil record. Instead, the age of the world was limited to the lengths of their genealogies, many of which were held by memory, and therefore quite short. Biological evolution was not even a consideration because in the eyes of the ancients, hens laid eggs that always produced chicks, ewes only gave birth to lambs, and women were invariably the mothers of human infants. Living organisms were therefore immutable; they were static and never changed. 

In conceptualizing origins, ancient people used these day-to-day experiences and retrojected them back to the beginning of creation (Latin retro: backward; jacere: to throw). Retrojection is the very same type of thinking used in crime scene investigations. Present evidence found at the scene is used to reconstruct past events. In this way, the ancients came to the reasonable conclusion that the universe and life must have been created quickly and completely formed not that long ago. And this was the best origins science-of-the-day. 

http://biologos.org/blog/was-adam-a-real-person-part-i

Raising godless kids

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5659984/only-30-percent-of-kids-raised-as-atheists-stay-that-way-as-adults

Moving the football field

A few days ago The Herald News (serving Dayton, Tenn., and Rhea County communities since 1898) reported the next, and I suppose inevitable, development in the Bryan-College-brazenly-moves-the-statement-of-faith-goal-posts-as-a-way-of-weeding-out-dangerous-faculty-who-don’t-think-the-Bible-is-a-science-book saga. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/05/ill-see-your-clarified-statement-of-faith-and-raise-you-a-lawsuit-more-good-times-at-bryan-college/

Did the board of trustees move the goalpost? Or did the faculty move the football field? 

I think the goalpost is where it's always been. But some professors redrew the sidelines, so that what used to be out of bounds is no longer out of bounds. Wasn't Bryan College founded in  opposition to Darwinism? Isn't the mild revision to the original statement of faith consistent with original intent? Wasn't the original statement designed to exclude human evolution? 

Skin for skin

Why doesn't God do more to protect his people from harm? There are at least a couple of explanations:

Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word (Ps 119:67).

As long as evil is just an abstraction, we don't take it seriously. Indeed, evil often has a short-term payoff. That's what makes it appealing. Unless we experience the undesirable consequences of evil firsthand, we don't appreciate the malignity of evil. 

9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11). 

4 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. 5 But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face” (Job 2:4-5).

There's the danger of following God for the wrong reasons. Following God for the benefits, and not because it is right, true, and good. 

Now, as needy creatures, there's nothing inherently wrong with an element of self-interest to motivate religious devotion. But that shouldn't be the only incentive. It's not like God ought to bribe us in exchange for our fidelity. 

The mark of the Beast

16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name (Rev 13:16-17).

Is affirming homosexuality the mark of the Beast? 

First they lost their television show. Now the Benham brothers say they are losing their business. 

SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with would-be reality stars David and Jason Benham after liberal activists attacked them for their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage, The Daily Caller has learned. (UPDATE: SunTrust Reverses Decision on Benham Brothers) 

In a statement provided first to TheDC on Friday, the Benham brothers confirmed that SunTrust Banks has pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business, which includes several franchisees across four states. 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/exclusive-suntrust-cuts-business-ties-with-benham-brothers-after-conservative-views-attacked/?print=1

Like a contagion, it's striking how fast the witchhunt is spreading. We've gone from businesses supposedly discriminating against homosexuals to businesses legally forbidden to discriminate against homosexuals to businesses discriminating against customers who disapprove of homosexuality. 

SunTrust backed down, but it shows how potentially vulnerable Christians are to economic coercion. It can happen literally overnight. Inasmuch as most private businesses are dependent on the banking system, this kind of boycott would be devastating to the livelihood of Christian entrepreneurs. 

Forum of Christian Leaders

FOCL looks like a useful resource.

Predestinarian apocalypticism

To understand this, you have to enter into the “logic” of ancient theological thought, and especially “apocalyptic” thought.   I’ll sketch it briefly.  God doesn’t make up his game-plan as the game goes along, but has the plan (of world history, redemption, judgement, etc.) all laid out even before creation.  So, as God acts in revelation, each action is also an unveiling of his prior purpose and plan.  So, “eschatological” events were actually in God’s purpose from the beginning:  “final things = first things” (to paraphrase a scholarly formula). 

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/jesus-pre-existence-etc-responding-to-questions/

Biblical astronomy

One objection unbelievers raise to Joshua's Long Day, the Star of Bethlehem, and the Crucifixion darkness, is the (alleged) absence of extrabiblical confirmation. If these were global events, visible worldwide or visible outside the Holy Land, we'd expect extrabiblical records. So goes the argument. 

Of course, how global these events really were is, itself, a matter of interpretation. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all three events would be visible outside the Holy Land. Does the absence of documentation commensurate with the extent of the phenomena cast doubt on the historicity of the Biblical record? Let's take a comparison:

On July 4, 1054 A.D., Chinese astronomers noted a "guest star" in the constellation Taurus; Simon Mitton lists 5 independent preserved Far-East records of this event (one of 75 authentic guest stars - novae and supernovae, excluding comets - systematically recorded by Chinese astronomers between 532 B.C. and 1064 A.D., according to Simon Mitton). This star became about 4 times brighter than Venus in its brightest light, or about mag -6, and was visible in daylight for 23 days. 

Some older sources had speculated that this supernova might have been as bright as the Full Moon (or mag -12). The reason for this assumption was probably the intention to fit its 23-day visibility with older model lightcurves. 

It was probably also recorded by Anasazi Indian artists (in present-day Arizona and New Mexico), as findings in Navaho Canyon and White Mesa (both AZ, found 1953-54 by William C. Miller) as well as in the Chaco Canyon National Park (NM) indicate; there's a review of the research on the Chaco Canyon Anasazi art online, including the full-size version of our photo, which was obtained by Ron Lussier. A similar photo of this possible Supernova Pictograph was obtained by Paul Charbonneau of the High Altitude Observatory. 

As Simon Mitton points out in his book (Mitton 1978), evidence for the plausibility of this interpretation arises from the fact that on the morning of July 5, 1054 the crescent moon came remarkably close to the supernova, as seen (only) from Western North America. 

In 1990, Ralph Robert Robbins of the University of Texas announced the discovery of additional records in pottery of the Mimbres Indians of New Mexico. The plate probably representing the supernova is e.g. shown on page 68 of Robert Garfinkle's book Star Hopping. As the author lines out, the art style of this plate was used only before 1100 A.D., and carbon-14 dating indicates that this plate was created between 1050 and 1070 AD, so that very probably the supernova is depicted, as a 23-rayed star. 

Strangely enough, it seems that at least almost no records of European or Arab observations of the supernova have survived to modern times. 

http://messier.seds.org/more/m001_sn.html

Either this highly conspicuous, widely observable event wasn't generally reported, or most of the reports were lost. This, despite the fact that ancient observers took a keen interest in celestial prodigies and portents. 

Conservative punditry

Recently I was asked what conservative pundits I recommend. That requires some preliminary sorting.

i) On the one hand, certain issues are perennial issues. They crop up on a regular basis. On the other hand, news analysis is ephemeral and repetitious. 

ii) There are "generic" pundits who generally write well on a range of issues. 

iii) There's a difference between Christian conservative and non-Christian conservative pundits. Non-Christian conservatives can be good on economics, the Constitutional rule of law, &c. 

iv) Traditionally, conservatives tend to be hawkish, with a keen interest in geopolitics. But due to how the Bush and Obama administration bungled the "war on terror," the emphasis has shifted from foreign policy to domestic policy. 

v) Some pundits like Matt Walsh and Mark Steyn are as popular for their style as their content. 

vi) Some pundits specialize on particular issues. 

vii) Some categories overlap, so there will be some repetition in my list. 

vii) My selection criterion is largely based on what's available online.

viii) As an American, I focus on the American political scene. However, culture war issues and arguments are the same in the US, UK, and EU. 

Generic

Charles C. W. Cooke

Victor Davis Hanson

Charles Krauthammer

Ramesh Ponnuru 

George Will

Christian apologetic/culture war aggregator

Wintery Knight

Think-tanks

Witherspoon Institute

Philosophers

Keith Burgess-Jackson

Lydia McGrew

Bill Vallicella

Evangelical

Denny Burk

Joe Carter

John Frame

David French

Albert Mohler

Justin Taylor

James White

Catholic

Francis Beckwith

Robert George

Jewish

Michael Brown

Mark Levin

Michael Medved

Dennis Prager

Jay Sekulow

Ben Shapiro

Black

Ben Carson

Larry Elder

Thomas Sowell

Kevin D. Williamson

Libertarian

John Stossel

Dhimmitude

Daniel Pipes

Robert Spencer

David Wood

Economics

Larry Kudlow

Tomas Sowell 

Feminism/Homosexuality

Michael Brown

Denny Burk

Robert Gagnon

Wayne Grudem

Jim Hamilton

Helen Smith

Christina Hoff Sommers

Abortion/euthanasia

Francis Beckwith

Robert George

Scott Klusendorf

Lydia McGrew

Wesley J. Smith

Religious liberty

Francis Beckwith

David French

Robert George

Jay Sekulow

Political demographics

Michael Baron

Voter Fraud

John Fund 

Global warming

E. Calvin Beisner

Habila Adamu

"Nigerian Christian Shot in the Face by Boko Haram Reveals Ordeal"

HT: Denny Burk.