Thursday, February 17, 2011
Infidel action figure (brain not included)
THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
Daryl was obviously a sociopath, like roughly 5% of the general population (though the vast majority of sociopaths enever kill). I commend a reading of Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door for those interested in this kind of behavior.
Daryl is a calculating rationalist. He begins with a popular secular premise, then conducts himself accordingly.
Premise: This life is all there is, so make the most of it.
So he’s prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to achieve that objective so long as he can get away with it.
But if you wish to treat atheism as synonymous with psychopathology and sociopathology, who am I to differ?
What can an atheist say to convince Daryl that he did anything truly and objectively evil? Well, most of us (i.e. the non-sociopaths) would tell him that what he did was nasty. But the key is that we would be making our own moral judgment based on our evolved instincts and learned moral judgments.
i) Evolutionary ethics is fraught with philosophical problems:
ii) At best, evolutionary psychology fosters the illusion of right and wrong:
What you Bibleists fail to realize is that even if you decide to follow the moral precepts of some holy book or priest, you are still making your own judgments. Each individual has inevitably to rely on their own individual moral compass - their own sense of right and wrong - in weighing up to whom they should listen and whether to accept the moral advice they are given: Law (ibid, p. 79).
I already dealt with that objection in my review of The Christian Delusion, where Hector Avalos trots out the same lame argument. Try again.
I don't not profess to have any expertise in Calvinism but Maharashi Rauser wrote on his blog today that: Not only did God predispose human persons to behave in certain ways, but he is the primary cause of their acting the way they do. based on this view, Daryl should either blame lordy for his nasty predispositions or, better yet, just sincerely repent on his deathbed and receive a metaphysical "get out of jail free" card.
I’ve frequently dealt with moralistic objections to predestination. Either present a counterargument or shut up.
Also, don’t bother to come back here unless and until to you can tackle the problems with evolutionary ethics in the linked material. No free lunch for infidels.
My Heterodox Eschatology
When the Lord comes back he will uproot the Marxist city-state of Madison, Wisconsin, and throw it into Lake Michigan for the purgation of this once great state. Then the New Jerusalem will descend from the sky and hover over Lambeau field where the Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl every year for one thousand years.
Selective confessionalism
Scott Clark grudgingly admits that a Baptist can be a Calvinist, but he can't be "Reformed." And he can't be "Reformed" because Baptist theology is (allegedly) out of kilter with the 16-17 Reformed confessions, catechisms, &c., at key points.
Traditionally, Reformed theology, especially the Presbyterian variety, involves a hermeneutic of continuity, in contrast to Anabaptism, with its hermeneutic of discontinuity. And, of course, that’s what grounds the Presbyterian practice of infant baptism.
Other positions range somewhere within that continuum. The Baptist theology of the LBCF lays more emphasis on continuity, whereas NCT lays more emphasis on discontinuity.
WCF>LBCF>NCT>Anabaptism/Dispensationalism
However, the covenant theology of Kline, which underwrites 2k, and rewrites traditional covenant theology, involves a hermeneutic of discontinuity. It's the polar opposite of the WCF, and other suchlike.
Yet covenant theology is a central feature of traditional Reformed theology. And that differentiates 17C Presbyterianism (and its Dutch counterparts) from those "un-Reformed" 5-point Baptists.
So isn't Clark's core position pulling in diametrically opposite directions at this juncture?
Lies for lives
I’m going to repost some comments left on a thread at Justin Taylor’s blog.
steve hays February 15, 2011 at 11:42 am
Some helpful analysis by John Frame:
Must We Always Tell the Truth?
John M. Frame
The third and ninth commandments, especially, commend the truth to us, as do many other teachings of Scripture. God is a God of truth. He doesn’t lie (Tit. 1:2, Heb. 6:17-18, Num. 23:19). He wants us to image him in that as in other ways. Note the biblical polemic against lying in such passages as Psm. 31:18, 63:11, 101:7, 119:29, 163, Prov. 6:17, 12:22, 19:5, 9, Zech. 8:16, Eph. 4:25, 1 John 2:21, Rev. 21:27, 22:15. Satan is the father of lies, John 8:44, and sinners are dominated by lies, Rom. 1:25, 3:8-18, 2 Cor. 4:2-4, 2 Thess. 2:9-12. Scripture condemns false prophets, who tell lies about God, Deut. 13:1-18.
But there are other passages in which people mislead other people without incurring biblical condemnation. Note:
1. Ex. 1:15-21, the Israelite midwives in Egypt.
2. Josh. 2:4-6, 6:17, 25, Heb. 11:31, James 2:25, Rahab’s deception. Note that apart from what Rahab told her countrymen, even hiding the spies amounted to a deception.
3. Josh. 8:3-8, the ambush at Ai. As John Murray recognizes, God himself authorized this deception.
4. Judg. 4:18-21, 5:24-27, Jael and Sisera.
5. 1 Sam. 16:1-5, Samuel misleads Saul as to the reason for his mission.
6. 1 Sam. 19:12-17, Michal deceives her father’s troops.
7. 1 Sam. 20:6, David’s counsel to Jonathan.
8. 1 Sam. 21:13, David feigns madness.
9. 1 Sam. 27:10, David lies to Achish.
10. 2 Sam. 5:22-25, another military deceit.
11. 2 Sam. 15:34, Hushai counseled to lie to Absalom.
12. 2 Sam. 17:19-20, women deceive Absalom’s men.
13. 1 Kings 22:19-23, God sends a lying spirit against Ahab.
14. 2 Kings 16:14-20, Elisha misleads the Syrian troops.
15. Jer. 38:24-28, Jeremiah lies to the princes.
16. Luke 24:28, Jesus acts as if he intends to go further.
17. 2 Thess. 2:11, God sends powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Living life to the max
Daryl Dobbins was a bright, enterprising young man. A boy preacher in the First Church of the Fire Baptized. But one fateful day he succumbed to temptation and read a library book entitled The God Delusion. Then he read another book entitled god is not Great.
After that double whammy his faith lay in a heap of rubble. He now knew the afterlife was a lie, concocted by greedy, power-hungry churchmen to keep the teaming masses obsequious and barefoot.
Since this life is all there is, he had to make the most of his four-score and ten. Live life to the fullest. And to do that, he needed to move up the ladder.
His ambition was to graduate valedictorian, which would, in turn, ensure him a full scholarship to the Ivy League school of his choice. He then needed to graduate first in his class at law school. After that he could pretty much write his own ticket.
To get the most out of life, you had to have a plan. However, certain obstacles lay in the way of his dream–starting with Billy-Bob Nelson. For Billy-Bob was well on the way to being the high school valedictorian.
So Daryl offered to take Billy-Bob fishing on a secluded little lake nearby. Did I mention that Billy-Bob was a lousy swimmer?
Their rowboat “accidentally” capsized, and despite Daryl’s very best efforts to resuscitate his dear friend, it was curtains for Billy-Bob. Daryl offered a tearful eulogy at the funeral.
Daryl was an excellent student at Harvard law school, but competition was fierce. So he cultivated the reputation of an ace hacker. Not that he was a hacker, much less an ace hacker, but he did an excellent impersonation of an ace hacker. When time for finals rolled around, Daryl was the go-to guy (for a price) to obtain the test key.
Only there was this little catch. He generated the test key by flipping a coin for each answer.
His fellow students flunked the exam, but they couldn’t very well turn him in without turning themselves in.
After landing a top job at a Fortune 500 company, Daryl discovered the perfect wife. Well, almost. There was one small snag. She was married.
But, quite unexpected, she became available a few weeks later on the heels a transaction involving a callgirl, a hotel room, her husband, and a hidden camera.
You just had to know how to get the most out of life.
Where have all the "33,000" denominations gone?
What happens if the all-time favorite argument among Catholic epologists were to implode?
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703437304576120690548462776-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703437304576120690548462776-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Now they tell us!
Andrew Preslar
February 11th, 2011 11:13 pm :
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/son-of-a-tu-quoque/#comment-15166
February 11th, 2011 11:13 pm :Of course, it is impossible to prove that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, preserved whole and intact for all time (inclusive of the 16th century). It is also impossible to prove that this Church, gathered in ecumenical council, is so divinely assisted in her definitions of doctrine that she cannot teach error. So, in a sense, it is impossible to prove that Trent 13, Canon 2 is true.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/son-of-a-tu-quoque/#comment-15166
2k grifters
Jeffrey BrannenFebruary 15, 2011 at 9:40 am
Is it possible that a 2 Kingdoms approach here would help make some sense of the matter?
In the Common Kingdom, deception (spying, undercover operations, etc.) are part of the tools of the civil government to catch those who are harmful to the state.
In the Redemptive Kingdom, deception is out.
What do y’all think?
That’s an excellent question. 2 kingdoms>2 moralities.
Just like in Islam it’s wrong to lie to a fellow Muslim, but okay to lie to an infidel. Or like it’s wrong to steal from a fellow grifter, but okay to steal from outsiders. Or like the Omertà.
Of course, that does raise the question of whether 2k proponents can generally be trusted to honor their contractual agreements. A handshake in church is binding, but a handshake on the sidewalk is not. Something like that.
2k hyper-Calvinism
My biggest criticism is reserved for what [Scott] Clark says here: "Do I need exhortation? Sure, I need the law. It doesn’t produce perfection in me or even godliness, but it does drive me to Christ, who was and remains perfect for me. When the law and my sins accuse me righteously I confess but I also say, “If Christ is for us, who can be against us?”" As a preface let me say that Clark believes we should try to be better Christians and he rightly recognizes that Spirit and gospel are the instruments that achieve this in the Christian life. No disagreement here. Much like N.T. Wright the problem is not what he affirms, but in what he denies. If I read him correctly, Clark denies that exhortations in the OT/NT actually inspire us or drive us to do good. Now Imagine preaching through the Sermon on the Mount with this view. If I may caricature: "Don't worry folks, Jesus' doesn't actually expect any of you to do this stuff, he just said it to make you realize what rotten sinners you are and understand how much you need his imputed righteousness." Or imagine, preaching through James with this view. Hear again the fictive voice: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to believe more deeply in the doctrines of grace" (Jas 1:27 HPR [Hyper-Reformed Version]). Who could preach Matthew 5-7 or James 1:27 this way and get away with it?
http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2011/01/antinomian-wars-continued.html
Living dinosaurs
HUMAN APE SAID:
I have no problem with people who disagree with me, but I have a big problem with people who are stupid enough to believe people lived at the same time as dinosaurs. They ARE insane.
Every educated person knows dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, and our ancestors didn't start looking like modern humans until between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
To be wrong by 65 million years, that's pure out-of-control stupidity and a serious mental illness.
On Saturday Jack Conrad will show that New York is filled with dinosaurs: they roam the streets, hover over your roof, swoop down from trees, nibble on your garbage. “You can go in Central Park and feed the dinosaurs,” Dr. Conrad said. “That is, if you want to.”
Dr. Conrad is neither a crackpot nor a star in a new release in the “Jurassic Park” franchise. A research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, he will present a program there that demonstrates what he and his fellow paleontologists have learned over the last 15 years: Birds are dinosaurs.
Into Eden
Derek Apted was dying. Alone, in a hospital bed. In the final stages of a long degenerative illness. He was only 54.
During lucid moments he reviewed his life. So many regrets. So many lost opportunities. If only he knew then what he knew now. If only he could repeat his life with the benefit of hindsight.
Then an angel appeared to him in his hospital room. Or maybe it was just a hallucination. Hard to say in his often delirious state of mind.
The angel asked him if he wanted anything. Derek asked the angel for a chance to repeat his life, but with his memories intact.
In a flash, Derek found himself back in kindergarten. On the outside, a little boy. On the inside, a middle-aged man with a college degree and decades of experience.
He quickly established himself as a wunderkind. His teachers and parents were amazed at this precocious little boy. So mature for his years!
One of the first things Derek did was to talk his dad into making some prescient investments in some fledgling companies which would one day become Fortune 500 companies.
Derek wanted to be independently wealthy, not because he craved a rich man’s lifestyle, but because it would give him more control over his circumstances.
By the time he graduated from high school, and took ownership of his fortune, Derek was one of the world’s richest men. Yet only his tax attorneys and portfolio managers knew the extent of his fortune.
Outwardly, Derek maintained a fairly modest, middle class lifestyle. He never wanted much more than what he had. His problem lay in losing what he used to have. Derek had a happy boyhood and adolescence. He wanted to maintain as much of his past intact as possible. That’s where the money went.
Sure, there were a few indulgences along the way. Like a nice sports car in high school.
His friends were dimly aware of the fact that even though he wore what they wore, ate what they ate, he seemed to have bottomless pockets. Although he never worked a job, he could always afford whatever he needed or wanted. Always picked up the tab at the restaurant, or movies, or whatever.
Derek knew that his intellectual reputation was a perishable commodity. A 5-year-old with an adult IQ is a genius. And adult with an adult IQ is merely average. As he got older he had to coast on his reputation. Bluff his way through conversations with fellow students who were truly gifted.
He was offered full scholarships to Harvard and MIT, but he turned them down. He didn’t need the Ivy League education. He didn’t need a college education. He already had one. And, in any case, he didn’t need a job to pay the bills. More to the point, he couldn’t sustain his intellectual reputation in that company.
Derek’s ambitions were very unambitious. Down to earth. Close to home. He wanted to preserve his past, and redeem some lost opportunities.
His home was a beach cabin on the lake. His parents bought the property for a modest sum, before the area became so gentrified. Later they were priced off the land by ever increasing property taxes.
Derek always resented that. He was hoping to inherit the property. To be cheated out of it by the taxman was galling.
And now, of course, that wasn’t a problem. In fact, he bought some other neighborhood homes. He lived in one while his parents lived in his old home.
He moved his grandmother and his elderly aunt into another home nearby. In her old age, his grandmother lived alone until a house-burglar broke into her home and attacked her. She never recovered from that incident.
But Derek, with an eye to the future, could now prevent that from happening. Indeed, that’s one of the reasons he was repeating his life. To protect his loved ones from harm.
He also knew that his aunt would come down with a degenerative illness. Indeed, it ran in the family. She spent her final years in a nursing home.
Derek regretted that. And now he could do better. When the disease began to take hold, he could keep her close by, in the house next door. Provide her with a live-in nurse. Whatever she needed.
And he took the opportunity to have all the conversations with his aunt and his grandmother that he thought about having after they died, when it was too late to ask.
As a boy, Derek had a dog. He loved his dog. Indeed, after the dog died, he never wanted another dog. He remembered the day he had to put her to sleep. And he never quite got over that. He still missed his own dog.
So this time around he was more attentive to her physical needs. Had her groomed regularly. Scheduled regular check-ups with the vet.
Derek was also sorry that he never tried out for the football team. He missed the camaraderie. The opportunity to befriend certain students. Maintain lifelong friendships.
And now he had a chance to make up for that. Even though he wasn’t very good at football, he made the team. The athletic dept. could always use more money for equipment. All it took was a private little chap with Coach O’Brien, and Derek had his jersey.
After they graduated from high school, Derek hired his friends to keep them close. Found jobs for them to keep them in the area. Rented out his houses to them for a nominal sum.
One of the best things about repeating the past was his opportunity to date a couple of girls he let slip away the last time around. At the time there were two girls in high school who caught his fancy. He wasn’t sure which one he preferred, for he never got around to dating either one. Now he could get to know them both, and decide which one to marry.
Life was better this time around. Much better. At least in some respects.
And yet he couldn’t shake a certain lingering sadness. It’s something of a curse to know the future unless you can also control the future, or change the future. A bit fatalistic, really.
He could use his wealth and foresight to extend the lives of his loved ones. Enhance their quality of life. But in the end, he couldn’t really save them. They’d still age, sicken, and die.
He could take a different route this time, but all routes had the same destination. You just got there sooner or later, that’s all.
Indeed, life was rather anticlimactic. He often knew just what to expect. Pleasures were less pleasant when you could see them coming a mile away.
And he was filled with foreboding. Instead of outliving loved ones once, he’d have to outlive them twice.
And then there was the nagging fear that his friends loved him for his money. The first time round, when all of them were hard up for money, and only had each other, wasn’t friendship more meaningful? What comes easily, goes easily.
Moreover, he could do nothing to prevent the onset of his own degenerative illness. Once again he felt the clockwork progression of the old familiar symptoms.
There was only so much this life had to offer. He needed something more. Something this autumnal world could never provide.
Russian Young Earthers!!!
29 percent of Russians are YEC. That’s how many believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Therefore, they must be YEC!
Except not really (expand the “People” section and look at Religions). Russia is 15-20% Russian Orthodox and a whole 2% “other” Christian (which I’m sure includes cults like Mormons). Combining those only yields 22% (and note that the Russian Orthodox Church, as far as I’ve heard, isn’t YEC anyway).
Yet still, the new atheists always lament the existence of religion as the primary cause of doubt in science, especially regarding the doctrines of Darwin. And they are confident that if we just get rid of religion, “reason” will be victorious. That’s why we’re treated to books like The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism by Niles Eldredge, or Why Intelligent Design Fails (edited by Taner Edis and Matt Young).
But when you look at a country where religion was persecuted for 70 years, where less than half the people are religious at all (this includes the non-Christian groups, such as Muslims, etc.), you quickly discover that this lack of belief doesn’t seem to have much impact at all on whether someone will accept the “scientific” worldview.
Naturally, the poll given is only one sample, and so strong conclusions cannot be drawn from it. Still, the conclusion arrived at by those conducting the poll is that science is not taught very well in Russia, and that is probably true. But even so, there’s very little religious pressure in Russia to cause people to believe dinosaurs and people co-existed, and these people have heard enough of the science to know what a dinosaur is.
Except not really (expand the “People” section and look at Religions). Russia is 15-20% Russian Orthodox and a whole 2% “other” Christian (which I’m sure includes cults like Mormons). Combining those only yields 22% (and note that the Russian Orthodox Church, as far as I’ve heard, isn’t YEC anyway).
Yet still, the new atheists always lament the existence of religion as the primary cause of doubt in science, especially regarding the doctrines of Darwin. And they are confident that if we just get rid of religion, “reason” will be victorious. That’s why we’re treated to books like The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism by Niles Eldredge, or Why Intelligent Design Fails (edited by Taner Edis and Matt Young).
But when you look at a country where religion was persecuted for 70 years, where less than half the people are religious at all (this includes the non-Christian groups, such as Muslims, etc.), you quickly discover that this lack of belief doesn’t seem to have much impact at all on whether someone will accept the “scientific” worldview.
Naturally, the poll given is only one sample, and so strong conclusions cannot be drawn from it. Still, the conclusion arrived at by those conducting the poll is that science is not taught very well in Russia, and that is probably true. But even so, there’s very little religious pressure in Russia to cause people to believe dinosaurs and people co-existed, and these people have heard enough of the science to know what a dinosaur is.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Lee Irons on natural law 2k
The theocratic implications of Natural Law
As a fellow adherent of the “two kingdom” theory, I applaud a good deal of what Scott Clark is trying to say here. I agree with him that there is such a thing as natural law inscribed on the conscience and that it is binding on all men in all ages. But I disagree with these statements:
Note that, on Clark’s view, the civil magistrate is obligated to “assert,” “protect,” and “enforce” natural law, to “require humans to live within their creational boundaries.” Clark makes this claim in order to argue that the state has a moral duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage. Clark seems to be saying that the state has a moral obligation or duty to enforce the moral law (= natural law), a duty that itself derives from moral/natural law.
My problem with this is that, if logically carried through, this will lead to a view of civil government that is just as theocratic as that desired by the theonomists. The only difference so far as I can tell is that on Clark’s view there would be more leeway in the specifics of the penal code. But consider the following implications. The state would be obligated to …
- Prohibit public expressions of idolatry
- Have blue laws encouraging Sabbath observance
- Criminalize all forms of immoral sexual activity between consenting adults, including homosexual activity
- Prohibit all unlawful divorce
- Prevent those who were divorced unlawfully from remarrying
Now Clark protests that he is no theocrat:
But if he really believes that “it is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law,” including all violations of the first table, then he is going back on his original premise: he no longer believes that the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce moral/natural law per se, but only a subset of it. But if he actually thinks the civil magistrate only has a duty to enforce a subset of the moral/natural law, how can he claim that the civil magistrate has a moral duty to enforce any of it? After all, the moral duty of the civil magistrate to enforce the moral/natural law flows from the moral law itself. So how can the magistrate pick and choose the parts he is going to enforce, when the whole stands or falls together? So, in spite of Clark’s claim that “this is not a theocratic argument,” it is, in fact, a theocratic argument.
Since he has appealed to natural law as the foundational principle of his theory of civil government, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either he maintains his foundational principle (namely, that the civil magistrate has a moral obligation to enforce the moral law) and applies it consistently to the civil enforcement of the entire moral law, both the so-called first and the second table. Or he backs down and makes a much less dramatic claim: the civil magistrate may enforce parts of the moral law to the extent that it promotes good order and well-being in society. But then Clark would no longer be able to claim that the civil magistrate is morally required to enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage. The civil magistrate could still enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage, but now only on the softer ground that various sociological studies have shown that it is better for society, for children, etc., not because natural law requires it.
Another problem with the appeal to natural law as the principle for determining the positive enforcement duties of the civil magistrate is that we live in a pluralistic society in which the very content of natural law itself is highly contested at critical points. Many citizens believe, for example, that committed same-sex relationships are not in any way sinful. Again, I affirm that the these people are wrong, and that deep down they know they are wrong. I know that because I believe the Bible’s teaching concerning the content of natural law (e.g., Romans 1). But such an appeal to Scripture will have minimal persuasive value in the public square. A natural law theorist may not go out with the intention of making a naked appeal to Scripture. He may try appealing to various arguments that support his interpretation of natural law, keeping his biblical beliefs out of play to achieve maximum rhetorical effect. But since the ultimate epistemic basis for his interpretation of natural law is Scripture, at the end of the day this will come to light at some point in the argument and it will become evident that he is not really making a good-faith religiously-neutral appeal.
The irony is that Clark claims to be an advocate of the “two kingdom” theory of civil government, that is, the notion that the two kingdoms — the common grace kingdom of civil government and the eschatological kingdom of God — are separate and distinct. Yet in his version, the common grace kingdom of civil government is bound to enforce the moral/natural law. In this way, the civil realm loses its common grace character and becomes theocratic, thus erasing the distinction between the two kingdoms.
Most theonomists would be perfectly happy with a state run on natural law principles, since they argue that the general equity of the Mosaic Law is identical with natural/moral law as revealed via general revelation (cp. Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pp. 206, 222).
Again, I agree with the Reformed doctrine of natural law. It is biblical (Romans 1). I’m merely objecting to the claim that it is the moral duty of the state to enforce it in society.
It is the creational (and biblical) office of the magistrate to assert and protect creational/natural boundaries by promoting civil peace and justice … It is the creational function of the state to preserve order and require humans to live within their creational boundaries … The magistrate has a right and a duty to enforce marriage and divorce laws in order to enforce natural, creational boundaries in the same way he has a duty to protect a society from theft and fraud.
Note that, on Clark’s view, the civil magistrate is obligated to “assert,” “protect,” and “enforce” natural law, to “require humans to live within their creational boundaries.” Clark makes this claim in order to argue that the state has a moral duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage. Clark seems to be saying that the state has a moral obligation or duty to enforce the moral law (= natural law), a duty that itself derives from moral/natural law.
My problem with this is that, if logically carried through, this will lead to a view of civil government that is just as theocratic as that desired by the theonomists. The only difference so far as I can tell is that on Clark’s view there would be more leeway in the specifics of the penal code. But consider the following implications. The state would be obligated to …
- Prohibit public expressions of idolatry
- Have blue laws encouraging Sabbath observance
- Criminalize all forms of immoral sexual activity between consenting adults, including homosexual activity
- Prohibit all unlawful divorce
- Prevent those who were divorced unlawfully from remarrying
Now Clark protests that he is no theocrat:
To anticipate an objection, this is not a theocratic argument. It is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law and sin. For example, no one but theocrats want the state enforcing obedience to the first table of the law. The magistrate’s natural sphere of concern and authority is in the second table.
But if he really believes that “it is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law,” including all violations of the first table, then he is going back on his original premise: he no longer believes that the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce moral/natural law per se, but only a subset of it. But if he actually thinks the civil magistrate only has a duty to enforce a subset of the moral/natural law, how can he claim that the civil magistrate has a moral duty to enforce any of it? After all, the moral duty of the civil magistrate to enforce the moral/natural law flows from the moral law itself. So how can the magistrate pick and choose the parts he is going to enforce, when the whole stands or falls together? So, in spite of Clark’s claim that “this is not a theocratic argument,” it is, in fact, a theocratic argument.
Since he has appealed to natural law as the foundational principle of his theory of civil government, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either he maintains his foundational principle (namely, that the civil magistrate has a moral obligation to enforce the moral law) and applies it consistently to the civil enforcement of the entire moral law, both the so-called first and the second table. Or he backs down and makes a much less dramatic claim: the civil magistrate may enforce parts of the moral law to the extent that it promotes good order and well-being in society. But then Clark would no longer be able to claim that the civil magistrate is morally required to enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage. The civil magistrate could still enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage, but now only on the softer ground that various sociological studies have shown that it is better for society, for children, etc., not because natural law requires it.
Another problem with the appeal to natural law as the principle for determining the positive enforcement duties of the civil magistrate is that we live in a pluralistic society in which the very content of natural law itself is highly contested at critical points. Many citizens believe, for example, that committed same-sex relationships are not in any way sinful. Again, I affirm that the these people are wrong, and that deep down they know they are wrong. I know that because I believe the Bible’s teaching concerning the content of natural law (e.g., Romans 1). But such an appeal to Scripture will have minimal persuasive value in the public square. A natural law theorist may not go out with the intention of making a naked appeal to Scripture. He may try appealing to various arguments that support his interpretation of natural law, keeping his biblical beliefs out of play to achieve maximum rhetorical effect. But since the ultimate epistemic basis for his interpretation of natural law is Scripture, at the end of the day this will come to light at some point in the argument and it will become evident that he is not really making a good-faith religiously-neutral appeal.
The irony is that Clark claims to be an advocate of the “two kingdom” theory of civil government, that is, the notion that the two kingdoms — the common grace kingdom of civil government and the eschatological kingdom of God — are separate and distinct. Yet in his version, the common grace kingdom of civil government is bound to enforce the moral/natural law. In this way, the civil realm loses its common grace character and becomes theocratic, thus erasing the distinction between the two kingdoms.
Most theonomists would be perfectly happy with a state run on natural law principles, since they argue that the general equity of the Mosaic Law is identical with natural/moral law as revealed via general revelation (cp. Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pp. 206, 222).
Again, I agree with the Reformed doctrine of natural law. It is biblical (Romans 1). I’m merely objecting to the claim that it is the moral duty of the state to enforce it in society.
http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=240
When in doubt
Here's a copy of a letter I sent to a Baptist pastor recently who's suffered a lapse of faith. Not having heard back from him, I'll post it here:
Hi Byron,
I read the letter you posted at your blog. A few impressions:
Destroy the village to save the village
I notice that a couple of Arminian epologists (Peter Lumpkins, Billy Birch) are plugging a deconversion testimony. That’s a reviewing window into their ultimate priorities.
They promote it because they think it scores a coup against Calvinism, since the individual identifies himself as a one-time Calvinist, and directs some of his barbs at Calvinism in particular.
However, as anyone who bothers to read the piece can see, the objections are broader than Calvinism. It's not as if the individual simply switched from Calvinism to, say, Arminianism.
No, he repudiated the Christian faith. And his objections are clearly directed against Christian in general, not Calvinism in particular. Even when he frames his objections in terms of Calvinism, the objections are separable from the specifics of Calvinism.
So why are these Arminians promoting an attack on the Christian faith? Why are they redirecting their audience to read an attack on the Christian faith? Notice, too, that they don’t take the time to rebut any of objections. They let the objections stand.
I’d also note in passing that it doesn’t really score any points against Calvinism. On the one hand, Calvinism makes allowance for apostates and backsliders. On the other hand, some Arminians also commit apostasy.
Apparently, they hate Calvinism more than they love Christianity. Even atheism is better than Calvinism.
It’s like a bunch of bandits who take refuge in an orphanage. The posse decides to burn down the entire orphanage, thereby killing everyone inside, to ensure the death of the bandits. If you have to kill all the orphans to kill all the bandits, it’s worth the price.
Practical Deism
The Bayly bros did a recent post which drew my attention to an older post by Scott Clark. I’ll excerpt what I take to be Scott’s key contentions:
As I pointed out in those places both as a matter of history and, more fundamentally, as a matter of biblical revelation, we are clearly taught not to try to interpret providence. It is a temptation that we must resist. When God has not revealed himself (either explicitly or by “good and necessary inference” from Scripture) we should be silent. The plain fact is that we don’t know why a tornado struck that steeple just at that moment. It is fascinating, and surely it is sobering, just as a cancer diagnosis is sobering. But think of the difficulties attached to interpreting providence. I grew up in Tornado Alley. Like snow, humidity, and hail, they were a natural fact. When the “Big One” hit Omaha in 1975 or an even bigger one hit Grand Island (Neb) the next year, was that a message from God? Was God particularly displeased with the sinners in Omaha and Grand Island? When a tornado hits a lonely farmhouse in Kansas or even wipes out an entire town (Greensburg, Kan) does that mean that God was particularly displeased with them?
What makes me roll my eyes is not the wrath of God or the folly of denying his instruction regarding sin and grace but the presumption of those who think they can know the “hidden things” of God (Deut. 29:29).
We don’t need to add gravity to the Word by appealing to interpretations of providence which, in the nature of the case, is ambiguous. Piper may be right, but he may not be right. The truth is that God knows the end from the beginning. We cannot even begin to fathom what that means. God knows from eternity. He knows in a single act. He knows comprehensively. He knows intuitively. He knows freely. He knows sovereignly. He knows easily, effortlessly. He knows in a way that we can try to describe (apprehend) but in a way that we can never comprehend. One of the biggest problems with proposed interpretations of providence is this: not only do they directly contradict the express teaching of our Lord, but they also entail an insufficient appreciation for the majesty of God. I know it sounds odd to challenge John Piper on a theme like this, but that’s what is ironic. God’s ways are mysterious. They are far beyond our finding out. We’re not canonical actors. God doesn’t reveal to us the meaning of this earthquake, that flood, or that tornado. He just doesn’t. We don’t have what the classical Reformed and Lutheran theologians called “Archetypal theology,” i.e., we don’t know what God knows, the way he knows it. We have “ectypal theology,” i.e. we have “analogical” (their word) theology. God gives us analogues of his knowledge, but our intellects never intersect with his. We’re not capable of knowing what God knows, the way He knows it. Such knowledge would destroy us.
There is another problem. I’ve seen cases where a given interpretation of providence becomes binding, a kind of extra-canonical word from God, a fence around the law as it were. In such a case, Christians are no longer bound only the Word (which has to be interpreted, applied, and confessed by Christ’s church) but to the interpretation of natural revelation beyond that given in the Word. Rom. 1 teaches us the general meaning of natural revelation, but, beyond that we have no inspired interpretation and certainly not of particular episodes. The human lust to know that which we should not, to seek that which is hidden from us, is ancient and deadly. Whoever knows “God’s will for your life” is a very powerful person indeed: ask the victims of the Word-faith and Kansas City prophets (etc).
The meaning of a particular providence is hidden from us. If God wanted us to know the meaning of a particular providence, he would tell us but He hasn’t, has He? I don’t know that John is wrong, but I don’t know that he’s right. That’s just the point: I don’t have to know. We have the Word. Sola Scriptura.
Replicability
One of the stock objections to miracles is that miracles aren’t replicable. They can’t be tested under laboratory conditions, with a control group.
Of course, this objection fundamentally misconceives the very nature of miracles. But there’s another problem internal to the objection, for the criterion of replicability is becoming an issue in contemporary science. Therefore, that can’t be used to so easily demarcate miracles from the scientific method.
The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.
But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades.
For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Why Is The Resurrected Jesus So Ordinary?
Critics of Jesus' resurrection often act as if there's little evidence that can be cited for the resurrection outside of the writings of Paul. They're highly dismissive of the resurrection accounts in the gospels and Acts. That's probably largely because those narratives are so inconsistent with skeptical theories. Jesus' resurrection body is touched, He eats with people, etc. But there are some good reasons for trusting those accounts. They include details unlikely to have been fabricated, for example, like the prominence of female witnesses.
One line of evidence in the narratives that's often neglected is the nature of Jesus' resurrection body. In all of the gospels with resurrection narratives and the first chapter of Acts, the resurrection body is portrayed as not much different than an ordinary body prior to death. In contrast, resurrected individuals and other exalted figures are portrayed much differently in other sources written prior to and after the gospels and Acts and even within those five documents themselves. As Jonathan Kendall explains:
One line of evidence in the narratives that's often neglected is the nature of Jesus' resurrection body. In all of the gospels with resurrection narratives and the first chapter of Acts, the resurrection body is portrayed as not much different than an ordinary body prior to death. In contrast, resurrected individuals and other exalted figures are portrayed much differently in other sources written prior to and after the gospels and Acts and even within those five documents themselves. As Jonathan Kendall explains:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)