Two Reasons Why Boys are Effeminate Today

I have not seen a real man on television in over 15 years. That is because all the males on television today are effeminate.

I have two reasons why.

I grew up in Wisconsin. You know how parents would tell their children that when they were their age they had to walk to school in the snow?

Well, I actually did.

In fact, during the winter in the eighties it seemed like it would snow every other day, sometimes a week or two every day. I lived a half mile from my high school, so I walked to school every day—even when it was snowing. But before I trudged to school through the snow, I had to shovel the sidewalk and the driveway, and we are not talking a mere two inches, but often a foot of snow or more.

Today, I live in North Jersey and even though the winters here are mild compared to Wisconsin winters, it is really pathetic to watch how society here reacts to snow, as if they live in Florida where it never snows.

This morning it snowed—I kid you not—about two inches and the schools ended up having a "delayed opening." Yes, a "delayed opening," something I do not recall existed back in my high school days. If you were late for school because of the snow...tough luck, you were tardy and got demerits. My school did not even think about closing unless there was an actual blizzard which would require at least 14–16 inches and very windy, which would cause 4–8 or higher feet snowdrifts.

Boys today are pampered, fat, lazy, and effeminate.

I want to address another reason we are a soft nation. One of my most favorite memories as a kid was when I was in grade school during the winter months at recess we played "snow tackle football." I absolutely loved it, and so did my guy classmates. One of my favorite teachers was the quarterback for both teams. The best times for playing tackle football was when it was actually snowing. It was a blast to tackle—and be tackled!—in the snow. My favorite play was when our teacher would throw us bombs that would reach to the end of the school yard.

As kids we never thought about how cold it was or whether the inside of our gloves got sloshy wet. We were warm inside because we were playing. And that was all that mattered.

The fall and spring counterpart was dodgeball, but the liberals have outlawed that childhood pastime with an executive order.

Those days are sadly long over. Our generation of boys will never experience that simple joy.

Today, we are a feeble nation where not only our boys are no longer allowed to go outside if it is under 35 degrees, but the very notion of boys playing tackle football during recess is anathema to our effeminizing generation.

We are a soft nation.

God expects his word to be obeyed

Over at Reformation21, Scott Oliphint is working through the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). At Chapter 1.4, he writes:

iv. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

One of the first things that must be firmly embedded in our minds, both as Christians and consequently as biblical apologists, is the absolute self-attesting authority of Scripture. It is generally agreed that, if any section of the Westminster Confession of Faith was more carefully crafted than another, it was the section that deals with Holy Scripture. You can, no doubt, understand some of the reasons for that, particularly in the face of opposition from Roman Catholicism. The Confession is concerned, particularly in section four of chapter one, to show that it is in Scripture's authority that we see its divinity and inspiration represented.

Notice first of all, that the divines are interested here in the authority of Scripture. And the intent of the paragraph is to set out for us the ground or reason why the Scriptures are authoritative, and thus why they ought to be believed and obeyed. They set out, very clearly, that the authority of Scripture does not, in any way, rest on the Church or its councils. Rather, its authority rests on its author, God, and is to be received because it is His Word. This is sometimes called the autopiston of Scripture, translated as self-attesting, or self-authenticating. What does that mean?

It does not mean self-evident. Self-authentication is an objective attribute, whereas self-evident refers more specifically to the knowing agent. It therefore does not mean that revelation as self-authenticated compels agreement. That which is self-authenticating can be denied. It does mean that it needs no other authority as confirmation in order to be justified and absolutely authoritative in what it says. This does not mean that nothing else attends that authority; there are other evidences, which the next section makes clear. What it does mean is that nothing else whatsoever is needed, nor is there anything else that is able to supersede this ground, in order for Scripture to be deemed authoritative. This is, at least in part, what God means when he says, in Isaiah 55, that His Word, simply by going out, will accomplish what He desires. This is the case because of what God's Word is in itself. It always goes out with authority, because it carries His own authority with it.

That, in a nutshell, is how “God’s word” works. It works. As the author of Hebrews writes, “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

It requires no “interpretive paradigm”.

Michael Liccione said in a comment:

(1) The Catholic IP [“interpretive paradigm”] is preferable to the Protestant IP because the former, unlike the latter, supplies a principled distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinions.

I’m sure he’s outlined an argument for this somewhere. But what is it that makes it “preferable”? Preferable to himself, maybe, because he wants Rome’s views to come out on top, and this seems to me to be just a fancy way of stacking the deck.

Is this “IP” preferable to God? When has God ever outlined that this is preferable?

In speaking of God’s immutability, Bavinck writes, “God is as immutable in his knowing, willing, and decreeing, as he is in his being” (Vol 2 pg 154). Citing Augustine, he writes:

The essence of God by which he is what he is, possesses nothing changeable, neither in eternity, nor in truthfulness, nor in will (The Trinity, IV).

And citing Confessions:

For even as you totally are, so do you alone totally know, for you immutably are, and you know immutably, and you will immutably. Your essence knows and wills immutably, and your knowledge is and wills immutably, and your will is and knows immutably. (Confessions, XIII, 16)

He continues, “Neither creation, nor revelation, nor incarnation (affects, etc.) brought about any change in God. No new plan ever arose in God. In God there was always one single immutable will. He notes that this immutability as one of the incommunicable attributes of God is not questioned by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutherans, nor Reformed theologians.

Furthermore, as Steve Hays has said elsewhere, “Christianity is a revealed religion… Only God knows his own mind. We lack direct access to the mind of God. Intentions are hidden. We don’t know God’s intentions unless he tells us. That’s not something we can intuit or infer from the natural order.”

In the “35,000 foot view” model, John Currid, in his Genesis commentary (Vol 1) is able to make the statement that “Genesis 3:15 is Messianic. And the identity of the said descendant is clear from genealogies such as Luke 3 … Genesis 3 is the prophecy that God will send a redeemer to crush the enemy. Jesus is the seed who is descended from Eve and went to do battle against Satan. The remainder of Scripture is an unfolding of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. Redemption is promised in this one verse, and the Bible traces the development of that redemptive theme.

God is consistent in time. In his plan, in his will, in his method of revelation, God is unchanging. And when we perceive something different, such as the movement between the “old covenant” and the “new covenant”, we see, as the writer of Hebrews tells us, the old was merely “copies of the heavenly things”. Christ himself revealed “the heavenly things themselves” (Hebrews 9:23)

It is in that way that He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (Hebrews 1:3).

Where, then, in Revelation [“we don’t know God’s intentions unless he tells us”] does God posit, even in some “implicit, seed form” that having “a principled distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinions” is “preferable”?

I’ve cited Beale’s work on Adam, but Beale continues to show that God’s command to Adam continued through to the Patriarchs, then to Moses, where it was written down. Same set of commands:

To Adam:

And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

To Noah:

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. … And you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”

To Abraham:

“I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. … I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.

He says the same to Isaac, and Jacob, and repeatedly to the nation of Israel:

And the LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, within the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands.

He traces this same phenomenon all through the OT. And even though history continued to occur, and prophets continued to speak, the “living voice”, so to speak, faded away, superseded by what was written, and what was written was authoritative.

God expects his command to be obeyed, without providing “a principled distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinions”. He doesn’t use the precise wording every time, but his intention nevertheless is never said to be in question. (Even though “people interpret it wrongly”).

Where, in all of Old Testament history, does the immutable God provide the model for the “IP” which you say is preferable?

Satan bound

12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it.

7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

(Rev 12:1-4,7-9)

20 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.

(Rev 20:1-3,7-8)

In what sense is Satan bound? In what sense are the nations deceived?

i)The Apocalypse contains a lot of astronomical imagery. Why is that?

One reason is that Revelation is using stock apocalyptic language, which is often astronomical.

ii) Another reason is that astronomical imagery contrasts with terrestrial or subterranean imagery. This is a way of depicting the fact that behind human conflicts between God’s people and idolaters or persecutors are unseen spiritual forces. God and Satan, angels and demons.

iii) However, there may be a third reason. Zodiacal astrology, along with the corollary doctrine of astral fatalism, was pervasive in the Greco-Roman world. Likewise, thunder and lightning was a part of ancient astrology (e.g. brontologia). Although this had its critics, it was popular at all social strata. Indeed, its popularity gave rise to the critics. At the end of this post I present some documentation.

Therefore, it’s quite possible that Revelation is, among other things, a polemic against astrology and astral fatalism. That would certainly resonant with John’s audience.

iv) To some extent, Rev 12 and 20 are parallel. This may be a case of recapitulation, but I’m not pressing that claim. Even if Rev 20 is recapitulatory, I don’t think Rev 20 simply covers the very same ground. By Rev 19, the narrative has turned a corner. We’re on the homestretch.

Nevertheless, there are some undeniable parallels between Rev 12 and 20. And to that degree, they are mutually interpretive. Understanding Rev 12 helps us to understand Rev 20, and vice versa.

v) What do the figures in Rev 12 represent? Well, at one level, the woman stands for Israel, the newborn for the Messiah, and the Dragon for the Tempter in Gen 3–while the 12 stars evoke the 12 tribes of Israel (Gen 37:9).

vi) However, this scene is set in “heaven” (or the sky). It trades on astronomical imagery. Celestial portents were a fixture of ancient astrology. At that level, the twelve stars correspond to the Zodiac, the woman corresponds to Virgo while the Dragon corresponds to Hydra, Draco, Serpens, or Scorpio.  Which constellation precisely correlates with the Dragon is unimportant, since this conjunction is a literary construct rather than physical description.

vii) The meteoric image of a falling star signifies a fall from power. Indeed, that’s something of a literary cliché, both in Scripture as well as extrabiblical sources.

If John wanted to depose astrology, the cosmic Dragon’s downfall would be a good way of symbolizing the dethronement of astrology and astral fatalism.

viii) On this interpretation, the nations are deceived in the sense that, historically, many gentiles deluded by their faith in the stars. They thought their destiny was written in the stars. And this, in turn, was a way in which the Devil captivated the heathen imagination and made it subservient to his moral and spiritual tyranny.

By the same interpretation, Satan is bound when pagans emancipate themselves from astrology by becoming Christians. And that, in turn, is made possible by the advent of Christ.

But, of course, not all pagans became Christian. And some pagan converts to Christianity reverted to paganism. Apostates resume their Satanic self-delusions. They put themselves back under the Devil’s heel.

xi) This would be appropriate to Revelation, which is about the pressure to renounce the true faith in the face of persecution or martyrdom.

And this remains germane to our own time, for astrology continues to deceive many. 

A new old US policy of avoiding endless wars

This is an exceptional analysis from Stratfor:

www.stratfor.com/weekly/avoiding-wars-never-end

[Today, after Afghanistan] the United States has the option of following U.S. strategy in the two world wars. The United States was patient, accepted risks and shifted the burden to others, and when it acted, it acted out of necessity, with clearly defined goals matched by capabilities. Waiting until there is no choice but to go to war is not isolationism. Allowing others to carry the primary risk is not disengagement. Waging wars that are finite is not irresponsible.

The greatest danger of war is what it can do to one's own society, changing the obligations of citizens and reshaping their rights. The United States has always done this during wars, but those wars would always end. Fighting a war that cannot end reshapes domestic life permanently. A strategy that compels engagement everywhere will exhaust a country. No empire can survive the imperative of permanent, unwinnable warfare. It is fascinating to watch the French deal with Mali. It is even more fascinating to watch the United States wishing them well and mostly staying out of it. It has taken about 10 years, but here we can see the American system stabilize itself by mitigating the threats that can't be eliminated and refusing to be drawn into fights it can let others handle.

Timeless causation

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2013/01/some_philosophy_of_religion_fo.html

Acts as a historical source for Paul's life

http://paulbarnett.info/2012/12/lukes-acts-as-a-historical-source-for-paul/

Was Pharaoh a climate-change denier?

Howard Curzer recently published an article in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-j-curzer/exodus-6-2-9-35-pharaoh-the-climate-change-skeptic_b_2434761.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

He’s a philosophy prof. at Texas Tech. He and I then had an amicable exchange of views. I’m posting my side of the email correspondence.

Dr. Curzer,

I read your article “Exodus 6:2-9:35: Pharaoh, the Climate Change Skeptic” with interest. You said:

How do we maintain a healthy skepticism without straying toward bull-headedness or naiveté?

Through a careful study, we may come to more clearly see the difference between healthy skepticism toward new theories and the unhealthy denial of evidence exhibited by many contemporary climate change skeptics.

Will we avert climactic disaster or acknowledge the vast and rapidly growing evidence before us?

Coming from a philosophy prof., I find your position oddly unphilosophical. Isn’t it your job to foster critical thinking among your students?

From what I’ve read, “climate change” is not a single claim, but a variety of claims. So, at a minimum, don’t you need to break that down and then examine the evidence and/or counterevidence for each separable claim? For instance:

i) Is there global warming?

ii) Is global warming anthropogenic?

iii) If global warming is anthropogenic, is the trend reversible?

iv) Are global warming projections accurate?

v) If global warming exists, is that harmful? Harmful to whom or what? Is that a humanitarian crisis? An environmental disaster? Those aren’t interchangeable claims. What might be good for the environment might be bad for some humans, or vice versa?

I myself am a “climate change” sceptic. Here are some of my reasons. As a philosophy prof., perhaps you can explain to me why my reasons are “bullheaded” or reflect “unhealthy denial of the evidence.”

i) Environmentalists use to warn us about “global warming.” Now they warn us about “climate change.” How did that come about? “Global warming” is a specific prediction. By contrast, “climate change” is vague and nondirectional. Did environmentalists switch from “global warming” to “climate change” because the evidence did not, in fact, support global warming?

ii) From what I’ve read, crucial source data on which projections were based was “lost.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data/print

At best, that means the projections are now untestable. All we now have is “value-added” evidence.

Moreover, isn’t it dubious that the evidence was “lost”? Doesn’t that sound like a euphemistic way of describing the destruction of evidence? Destroyed because it was embarrassing? Maybe that’s just a huge accident, but is it unreasonable to be suspicious?

iii) Environmentalism is highly politicized. A cause that many environmentalists live for. It gives their lives a sense of purpose, meaning, direction. Just look at the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Moses, seeking freedom for his people, conveys warnings to Pharaoh about what God will do if he does not allow the Israelites to be free. Each time, Pharaoh's heart is "hardened." (In English, "hard-hearted" means unsympathetic, but the Hebrew idiom means unimpressed and unyielding rather than uncaring. At no point in the story is sympathy for the Israelites at issue.) But assigning responsibility for Pharaoh's posture of stubbornness raises a troubling theological problem.

Pharaoh hardens his own heart in response to the earlier plagues, but God hardens Pharaoh's heart in response to the later plagues. The theological problem is that when God hardens Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh's responses to the plagues do not seem to be free choices. It would seem unjust for God to force stubbornness upon Pharaoh and then punish him for his stubbornness.

In some ancient texts, divine intervention can be read as a metaphor for surprising actions. "Athena guided Achilles' spear" may mean that Achilles made an extraordinary throw.

Similarly, I suggest that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is a metaphorical way of describing unreasonable skepticism. This interpretive maneuver eliminates the unfairness problem and further provides a lesson on dealing with the prediction of natural disasters.

The obvious problem with your “interpretive maneuver” is that it doesn’t matter whether you think divine hardening is unfair. The only relevant interpretive consideration is whether the narrator thought that was unfair. You’re not entitled to eliminate something in the ancient text just because you find it personally objectionable. It wasn’t written to you. It wasn’t written to meet with your approval. Do you imagine the narrator had to share your scruples? If so, that’s awfully provincial of you. The world isn’t made in your image.

Like Pharaoh in Exodus 6:2-9:35, we in the modern world are faced with predictions of natural disasters and costly proposals for avoiding them.

I see. So Pharaoh should have averted the plague of frogs by installing a filtration system in the Nile? Or averted the plague of hail by having transparent aluminum domes placed over Egyptian farmlands? Would that stop Yahweh dead in his tracks?

Steve

Thanks for taking time to reply.

First you raise a series of challenges concerning the existence and nature of climate change. I am not going to try to respond to these in detail. I am a philosopher, not a scientist. My view is that (a) when the overwhelming majority of the scientific community says X, then we ought to believe X. And (b) the overwhelming majority of the scientific community says that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activities. I am not saying that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is always right; just that siding with them is the way to bet. If you agree with (a) and (b), then you and I are on the same page about climate change. If you want to discuss further details, you will have to talk to someone who is more familiar with the issues; someone other than me. This is as far as I go.

Sorry, but I don’t think that’s a rational standard. It’s far too crude.

i) Do I think there are scientific issues where we should defer to expert opinion? Sure. But I’m not going to turn that into a general maximum, for not all scientific issues are equal.

ii) Scientists sometimes give the public reasons for believing their theory is true. Indeed, “climate change” is one such example.

When they publicly state their reasons, that suggests the reasoning is accessible to a nonspecialist. In that event, I’m entitled to scrutinize the reasoning.

iii) Appealing to consensus can easily become circular and coercive.

iv) Scientific progress is often made by brilliant mavericks who buck the system. They are fiercely opposed by the establishment, but eventually they win the argument.

Scientists can be very “bullheaded” about their commitment to a theory they learned in college. Take the pre-Clovis/Topper controversy. Take the opposition Cantor faced, which literally drove him crazy. Take Thor Heyerdahl’s theory of cross-Pacific migration, which encountered ferocious resistance from the scientific establishment. Take scientific opposition to ball lightning. Take scientific opposition to neurogenesis.

v) The overwhelming majority of the scientific community isn’t qualified to judge climate change theory. Most scientists can’t render an informed opinion on that issue. They lack training in a relevant branch of science.

vi) Take one more example. Consider FDA approved drugs. Do I think that counts for something? Yes. I have more confidence in an FDA approved drug than a naturopathic “cure” at a Mexican clinic.

Yet you also have FDA drug recalls. Recalling some of the very drugs the same agency previously approved.

How does that happen? I can only guess. For one thing, once a drug goes to market, the sample group expands exponentially, as does the number of physicians administering the drug. Far more patients, far more feedback, far more medical observers.

In addition, there’s the use of control groups, during the experimental phase, to eliminate random variables. But once the drug goes to market, you no longer have carefully-screened test subjects. Side effects that were not detected during clinical trials now surface. Suddenly, the random variables which were assumed to be extraneous become relevant after all.

If a drug has been in use for, say, 10 years, then taking a headcount of physicians is quite reliable.

So my claim could be put this way. I think that there is good textual evidence to support the claim that God-hardened-Pharaoh’s heart means (c) Pharaoh acted uncharacteristically stubbornly. And there is textual evidence against the claim that it means (d) God made Pharaoh more stubborn. The evidence is this. Interpretation (c) is consistent with the rest of the Bible which generally assumes that people have free will and are held responsible only for their free choices.

For two reasons, I disagree:

i) If you define freewill as the freedom to do otherwise, then it would be nonsensical for God to give Pharaoh the freedom to thwart God’s intentions. For on that view, God intended to give Pharaoh the freedom to thwart God’s intentions. Thus God intends to frustrate God’s intentions, which is incoherent.

The purpose of the ten plagues was to demonstrate that Yahweh was the true God, in contrast to the impotent idol-gods of Egypt. To say that Pharaoh had the freedom to scuttle God’s plan, thereby interrupting the ten plagues at any stage of the process, cuts against the grain of the narrative.

ii) There are many passages in the Tanakh which portray God orchestrating human events from behind-the-scenes, viz.,

For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses (Josh 11:20).

If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death (1 Sam 2:25).

But Amaziah would not listen, for it was of God, in order that he might give them into the hand of their enemies, because they had sought the gods of Edom (2 Chron 25:20).

He turned their hearts to hate his people, to deal craftily with his servants (Ps 105:25).

10 Make the heart of this people dull,

    and their ears heavy,

    and blind their eyes;

lest they see with their eyes,

    and hear with their ears,

and understand with their hearts,

    and turn and be healed.”

(Isa 6:10)

For the Lord has poured out upon you

    a spirit of deep sleep,

and has closed your eyes (the prophets),

    and covered your heads (the seers).

(Isa 29:10)

O Lord, why do you make us wander from your ways

    and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?

Return for the sake of your servants,

    the tribes of your heritage.

(Isa 63:17).

Thus says the Lord God: On that day, thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil scheme (Ezk 38:10).

And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, and the leaders of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech (Judges 9:23).

His father and mother did not know that it was from the Lord, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel (Judges 14:4).

Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the Lord tormented him (1 Sam 16:14).

And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For the Lord had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the Lord might bring harm upon Absalom (2 Sam 17:14).

So the king did not listen to the people, for it was a turn of affairs brought about by the Lord that he might fulfill his word, which the Lord spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1 Kgs 12:15).

20 and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you” (1 Kgs 22:20-23).

5 When the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah, 6 Isaiah said to them, “Say to your master, ‘Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me. 7 Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land’” (2 Kings 19:5-7).

Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets. The Lord has declared disaster concerning you (2 Chron 18:22).

And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel (Ezk 14:9).

Thanks for your time. Two or three quick final points:

i) One pillar of your argument was climate change. Another pillar of your argument was Pharaoh as a paradigm-case of a climate change skeptic. When challenged, you confess yourself unqualified to defend either pillar of your argument. Although I appreciate your intellectual modesty, which is in short supply, that leaves your argument in shambles.

ii) Second, we need to have the critical detachment to distinguish what we think the Bible says from our perspective on the Bible. In the interpretive process, you can’t reasonably begin with what you’re prepared to believe is true, then use that to leverage your interpretation. For what the Pentateuchal narrator believed is independent of what you happen to believe. And it’s quite possible that what he believed is at variance with what you would write if you were the author of the Pentateuch. What if the Pentateuchal narrator did, in fact, believe that God is guiding some people (i.e. Pharaoh) with a “heavy hand” to bring about a grand plan? Are you denying to the narrator the freedom to assume a viewpoint at odds with your own? Isn’t that terribly parochial on your part?

iii) And to the extent that you believe in the authority of the Bible, then that would obligate you to accept the viewpoint of the narrator, even if it clashes with your preconceptions.

But thanks for your time. And I look forward to reading your sequel article (or blog post).

Scalar arguments

This is a sequel to my previous post on the same general subject:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/01/was-god-cooling-his-heels.html

Now I’m going to evaluate Nicholas Everitt’s argument.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, God decides to create a universe in which human beings will be the jewel. Although he will have a care for the whole of his creation, God will have an especial care for human beings. The Non-existence of God (Routledge 2005), 215.

I don’t see that traditional theism requires man to be the “jewel” of the universe. At most, man would be the apex of life on earth. That doesn’t make us the apex of creation in general. In some ways, angels are superior to man. For all we know, there are other intelligent life forms in the far-flung universe. And maybe our universe is part of a multiverse.

I’d add that I don’t feel the need to be the “jewel” of the universe. I’m perfectly content to be human, wherever that puts me in the cosmic pecking order. Because God made me human, I find fulfillment in my God-given humanity. I like being human. And I’’ll like it even better in the new Eden.

Because humans are the jewel of creation, the rest of the universe will be at least not unremittingly hostile or even indifferent to human flourishing. Even if the universe will not make such flourishing immediately and easily and painlessly accessible, it will make it at least accessible in principle for humanity in general (215).

i) He’s piggybacking on a false premise–man as the jewel of the universe.

ii) But even if we grant the premise, I don’t see how the conclusion follows. Being the kind of creatures we are, we are adapted to a particular ecological niche. Even on earth, we’re not adapted to survive and flourish in a marine environment. We’d be a different kind of creature in that event. If the crater of an active volcano is inhospitable to human flourishing, does that undermine God’s existence?

Due to technology, we’ve been able to expand our habitat. But that’s by creating an artificial environment (e.g. climate-controlled buildings) within the natural environment.

But among the more likely scenarios is a universe somewhat like the one presented to us in the story of Genesis. In particular, traditional theism would lead you to expect human beings to appear fairly soon after the start of the universe. For given the central role of humanity, what would be the point of a universe which came into existence and then existed for unimaginable aeons without the presence of the very species that supplied its rationale?…You would not expect humans to arrive very long after the animals, for what would be the point of a universe existing for aeons full of animals created for humanity’s delectation, in the absence of any humans? (215).

Several issues:

i) Why assume that man would have a central role in the cosmos, rather than a central role on earth? Why assume that man supplies the rationale for the existence of the universe? That’s very reductionistic.

Why assume that animals must exist for the exclusive benefit of man? Everitt is caricaturing traditional theism. Overstating the opposing position.

ii) There are Christians who do think man appeared shortly after the origin of the world and lower life forms.  They subscribe to fiat creationism or young-earth creationism. Everitt could try to challenge their position, but given their position, his objection has no traction with them.

iii) What about theistic evolution? Proponents have a principled reason for thinking man appeared late in the process. For they think God employed a natural process to evolve man. A bottom-up process from simple to complex. Everitt could try to challenge their position, but given their position, the late appearance of man is a logical implication of their position.

iv) What about progressive creationism or old-earth creationism? They think man appears late in the process because God made things in stages, where earlier stages supply the preconditions for later stages. For instance, you must have gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, thermodynamics, &c., before you can have solar systems with habitable planets. You must have plants before animals, because plants filter out carbon dioxide, thereby creating a breathable atmosphere for animals that require oxygen. Everitt might try to challenge their position, but given their position, the late appearance of man is logical.

Further, you would expect the earth to be fairly near the centre of the universe if it had one, or at some similarly significant location if it did not have an actual centre (215).

Why would we expect that? He doesn’t say.

You would expect the total universe to be not many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the earth. The universe would be on a human scale (215)?

Once again, why would we expect that? Are mountains on a human scale? Is the ocean on a human scale? Is the Grand Canyon on a human scale?

You would expect that even if there are regions of the created world which are hostile to human life, and which perhaps are incompatible with it, the greater part of the universe would be accessible to human exploration. If this were not so, what would be the point of God creating it? (215-16).

i) We may not be the only creatures in the universe.

ii) Even if we were, a big universe may be necessary for the possibility of life anywhere at all.

iii) The scale of the universe is a picturesque metaphor for God’s greatness, in contrast to our creaturely finitude.

So for something more than 99.999 percent of the history of the universe, the very creatures which are meant to be the jewel of creation have been absent from it. The question that at once arises is “What, given the hypothesis of theism, was the point of this huge discrepancy between the age of the universe and the age of humanity?” (216-17).

i) Of course, there are Christians who reject his timescales.

ii) However, let’s play along with his timescales. Does the discrepancy between the age of a redwood tree and a teenager cast doubt on traditional theism? How so? Does the discrepancy between the age of the Rocky Mountains and a teenager cast doubt on traditional theism? How so?

iii) From an eschatological standpoint, although the universe got a head start, the percentages will steadily narrow as glorified men and women continue to live on indefinitely.

Why does he need a sun that is 93 million miles from earth? Why wouldn’t 93 thousand miles have been enough? Of course the laws of physics would then have had to be different if the sun were to make earth habitable–but as an omnipotent being, God could easily have adjusted the laws of physics (217).

That’s confused. If you talking about physical laws, then, by definition, you’re limiting divine action to what God can do by natural means. That automatically imposes a constraint on divine omnipotence. An omnipotent God can do many things apart from natural means. He’s not limited to physical processes to produce a physical effect. If, however, you’re framing the counterfactual in terms of physical laws, then God lacks unrestricted access to his omnipotence. Your hypothetical confines God to whatever is naturally possible, not whatever is omnipotently possible. And natural means have inherent limitations.

If, moreover, you’re conjecturing a universe that operates according to a different set of physical laws, then that’s mutually limiting, for every law of physics must be compatible with every other law of physics. For the entire universe to consistently function at that level, for God to operate through physical laws alone, imposes many boundary conditions on what’s naturally compossible.

An omnipotent God can miraculously sustain life on earth if the sun is 93,000 miles a way. That, however, would be in spite of the sun’s proximity, not because of the sun’s proximity. Under that scenario, God wouldn’t be using the sun as a secondary cause to support life on earth. Rather, God would need to miraculously shield the earth from the sun.

Would it even be the “sun” as we understand it? Or would it have to be something very different than the sun? Clearly the sun, as presently constituted, can’t serve the same natural function in supporting life on earth if it were 93,000 miles away.

The Genesis story presents God’s actions as apt in relation to the non-human creatures who share the planet with humans: they all emerge at about the same time; and all the creatures which surround humanity in the story share a human scale–none are so tiny that it is impossible to detect them by the senses, and none are so huge (e.g. thousands or millions of times larger than humans) as to be unrecognizable as organisms at all. But again, modern science reveals this to be deeply wrong–not just in points of detail, but in almost every major respect. Life has existed on the planet for something like 3 to 3.5 billion years (217-18).

i) The fact that Genesis is silent on the existence of microscopic organisms doesn’t contradict the existence of microscopic organisms. Since microscope organisms were invisible to the original audience, what would be the point of mentioning them?

ii) What does he mean by organisms thousands or millions of times larger than humans? Is he alluding to dinosaurs? If so, the silence of Genesis on the existence of dinosaurs doesn’t imply the nonexistence of dinosaurs. Gen 1 isn’t attempting to present anything like an exhaustive taxonomy of life on earth. Rather, it discuses the origin of natural kinds.

Why would the narrator bother referring to animals which were extinct at the time of writing? That wouldn’t be meaningful to the target audience.

Is he alluding to whales? If so, that would be included in Gen 1:21.

iii) Suppose God really did make the world in the way Gen 1 describes–literally interpreted? Suppose God made a beach in one day. Less than a day.

Could you tell how old the beach really is? Even humans create artificial beaches.

Has Everitt ever bothered to read the best exponents of fiat creationism, viz. John Byl, Marcus Ross, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, Todd Wood?

iv) Of course, you also have progressive creationists who don’t interpret Gen 1 that way. They favor the framework hypothesis, analogical day interpretation, cosmic temple interpretation, &c.

They accept Everitt’s timescales. They accept the basic sequence of events posited by mainstream science. But they also think God kick-started the process at key junctures.

v) Perhaps Everitt would say that’s ad hoc.  However:

a) Progressive creationists would say that’s no more ad hoc than the alternation between miracles and ordinary providence in Scripture.

b) They’d say they believe in divine intervention on scientific grounds as well as theological grounds. They don’t think a stepwise process can jump the gaps. They don’t think unguided evolution can coordinate certain interdependent systems. Only divine intervention can bridge the gaps and provide necessary direction. They think the scientific evidence reveals discontinuities as well as continuities in the natural record. Novelties as well as emergent characteristics.

c) They think naturalistic evolution is ad hoc. Darwinians posit stopgap expedients to salvage their theory, viz., reversion, convergence, divergence, exaptation, ancestral homologies, derived homologies, coevolution, and parallel evolution.

In terms of their numbers, their longevity, their ability to exploit the widest variety of habitats, their degree of genetic variation, and even (amazingly, given how tiny they are individually) their total biomass, [bacteria] outstrip every other kind of life (218).

 

Yes, but there are tradeoffs for that adaptability. A vastly lower quality of life.

Recovering the Reformation: A Response to Sam DeSocio

I’m just a common tater. I don’t hold a church office; I’m not an elder or a deacon or a scholar. In fact, I couldn’t have made it limping through the last year, while my wife was ill, without the help of the elders and deacons of my own PCA church.

It wasn’t long ago that I was working with Sam DeSocio, then the Assistant Pastor at our five-year-old church plant, setting up chairs and toting heavy things in order to prepare for worship services in our rented gymnasium.

Given that history, I was surprised to see that Sam, now the pastor of a start-up church himself (two years old?) has made the big time, getting response blog posts from both Darryl Hart and Scott Clark for his suggestion that it may be practical to think about dividing up the PCA into three smaller denominations.

He gives a couple of reasons:

Was God cooling his heels?

Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

By John W. Loftus at 1/12/2013

For what it's worth, at least I'm not the only one who thinks Jeff Lowder's arguments don't work against my particular case. Here's Carrier from page 290 of my anthology, The End of Christianity:

    We cannot predict from “a very powerful self-existent being created life by design” that he would do this by creating trillions of galaxies and billions of light years of empty intergalactic space and then sit around and twiddle his thumbs for ten billion years before finally deciding to create life in just one tiny place. That’s not even expected at all, much less with 100 percent certainty.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/01/richard-carrier-on-argument-from-scale.html

For now I’ll content myself with few brief observations. At a later date I may also comment on Everitt’s argument, which Carrier footnotes.

i) There are, of course, scientifically competent Christians who reject Carrier’s timescales.

ii) Assuming we grant his timescales, if God is timeless, then God didn’t wait for 10 billion years to create life. A timeless God doesn’t wait for anything. Even if there’s a 10 billion year interval between the origin of the universe and the origin of life, that’s not an interval in the experience or being of a timeless God. Carrier is confusing what happens in or to the universe with what happens to God. But although God makes everything happen (directly or indirectly), nothing ever happens to God.

Carrier can, of course, try to attack divine timelessness. My immediate point is simply that his objection takes for granted a questionable, unstated premise.

iii) Likewise, on the B theory of time, everything came into being all at once. One can, of course, debate the scientific, philosophical, and theological merits of the B theory. My immediate point is simply that Carrier’s objection takes for granted a questionable, unstated premise.

iv) Why does Carrier assume life only exists on one planet? That’s certainly not an atheistic axiom. And that’s not a Christian axiom. Christian theology doesn’t preclude the existence of biological organisms on other planets. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. That’s an open question in theology.

v) To say God “finally decided” to create life 10 billion years later…is ambiguous. That could be taken in either of two different ways:

a) God decided to create life 10 billion years later.

b) God decided 10 billion years later to create life.

Does Carrier mean God originally planned to create life 10 billion years later, or that God didn’t decide to create life until 10 billion years into the process? Is it a delayed decision, or a delayed effect of a prior decision? Was God undecided about when or whether to create life? Or did God decided to create life all along, only save that development for a later stage in the creative process?

Probably, Carried just liked the sound of what he wrote, and didn’t bother to clarify in his own mind what he was even thinking.

"A Calvinist dystopia"

That framework is only sustainable, I think, because our knowledge is incomplete and imperfect. Calvinists know that some few are among the elect, and that Jesus’ atonement is not for all/most. But Calvinists have no way of knowing, with certainty, who the elect might be.

If that knowledge were available — if it were obvious and certain — then Calvinism would not last another generation. It would collapse partly due to ethical incoherence and partly due to ethical horror.

For an example of what I mean by ethical incoherence, here again is a quote we discussed recently from Calvinist pastor and blogger Kevin DeYoung. What he’s describing here is that idea of “limited atonement,” but DeYoung explains that with unvarnished candor:

    It’s not true to say that God loves everyone. Certainly not in the same way that He loves His children. And this is perhaps the best way to get at the question and why it’s striking to us. Does God always work for the joy and the happiness and the good of His children? Yes. Does He want to see all of His children come to believe in faith in Him? Yes. Will God in the end see that all of His children believe in Him, rejoice in Him, belong with Him forever? Yes. Are all people God’s children? No.

Some people are God’s children and some people are not. Legal equality, justice, the Golden Rule, universal human rights and human dignity are still necessary in this framework, but only because of our incomplete and imperfect knowledge. Better knowledge, more complete knowledge, would allow us to stop treating all people equally because, in this scheme, people are not equal. There would be no reason to treat everyone the same because, according to this doctrine, everyone is not the same.

Some are loved by God, others are not. Some are God’s children, others are irredeemably damned. If we knew for certain who was who, then our ethics would be transformed — reshaped to align with the character of God that this scheme suggests. Ethics, in other words, would revert to something more like the ethnic cleansing of Jericho and Ai.

By ethical horror I mean parents and children. Limited atonement is quite limited. The gate to salvation is narrow, but the gate is wide that leads to destruction. Most people, in other words, are not among the elect. And thus most children are not among the elect.

Calvinist parents can cope with the implications of that only because our incomplete knowledge allows room for denial. Complete knowledge would make that impossible. Parents — most parents — would know that the children they are raising are preordained for eternal conscious torment. They would know that the children they love are not loved by God as the children of God.

A majority of the population would come to see — to know — that they possess a greater capacity for love than God does. I don’t think any religious system could long survive such horrifying knowledge.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/13/theology-science-fiction-a-calvinist-dystopia/

Several problems:

i) In Calvinism, everyone is entitled to equal justice. Elect and reprobate are both entitled to equal justice. However, everyone is not entitled to equal mercy, for the simple reason that no one is entitled to mercy. Sinners have forfeited the right to demand forgiveness.

ii) A presupposition of unconditional election is that sinners are naturally equal. The elect aren’t morally or naturally superior to the reprobate. The elect were chosen despite their iniquity, which they share in common with the reprobate.

iii) Keep in mind that Fred Clark has politically correct, UN-style definition of justice. He calls himself “a snarky, liberal, tree-hugging, pro-choice, pro-GLBT, peacenik, commie, evolutionist.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/about/

Sure, his choice of terms is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you get the picture. So there’s no doubt that by his radically chic yardstick, Calvinism is unjust. But then, by his yardstick, many passages of Scripture are morally deplorable.

Notice the increasingly popular linkage between the rejection of Calvinism and the rejection of OT ethics: “Ethics, in other words, would revert to something more like the ethnic cleansing of Jericho and Ai.”

i) Once again, this illustrates the fact that people like Fred aren’t just attacking Reformed theism. They are attacking OT theism. Biblical theism.

ii) Keep in mind that God didn’t order the execution of all pagans. He only commanded the execution of pagans in the Promised Land, who chose to stay and fight.

iii) Since the new covenant doesn’t have a category for ritually clean geography, even if we knew who the reprobate were, that wouldn’t logically lead to purging the reprobate from our midst. Under the new covenant, there is no holy land in that sense. In the new Eden/new Jerusalem, the world will be purified. But that’s something God will do on Judgment Day. 

“The gate to salvation is narrow, but the gate is wide that leads to destruction.”

That doesn’t single out Calvinism. That’s not specific to limited atonement or limited election. Rather, that’s a general proposition about limited salvation. Not everyone will be saved. Some are damned.

“A majority of the population would come to see — to know — that they possess a greater capacity for love than God does.”

In a sense, that’s true. For instance, the wife of a murderous dictator may be devoted to her husband. She adores her sadistic, homicidal husband. But God doesn’t share her affection for the murderous dictator.

Likewise, the mother of a serial killer may continue to love her vicious son. God doesn’t share her maternal instinct.

Sinners can love the wrong things. A greater capacity for love is not inherently virtuous. It all depends on what you love. Some people love evil.

i) Now let’s move on to Fred’s main point. What if the elect knew who the elect were? What if the elect knew who the reprobate were? What if we could intuitively detect which is which? How would that discernment affect the way we treat the reprobate?

ii) Fred combines this with foreknowledge of a person’s eternal fate. It’s not just a matter of knowing who is reprobate. It’s a matter of knowing what that entails.

But in that case, framing the issue in terms of election and reprobation is a distraction. The heart of Fred’s hypothetical doesn’t lie in knowing who is reprobate, but in knowing–or foreknowing–who is hellbound. Fred’s hypothetical doesn’t single out Calvinists. Fred’s hypothetical is applicable to any orthodox Christian who believes in hell. How would you treat someone you knew was bound to be damned?

That’s an interesting hypothetical. But that’s a philosophical question rather than a theological question. A curious speculation.

iii) Let’s approach the answer indirectly. First of all, there’s the general question of how we’d adjust to life if we knew the future. There are fictional stories which explore that theme. The way this plays out is that a character who knows the future will be depressed. He can’t enjoy the present, for the present is overshadowed by his prescient perception of all the bad things which will befall friends and relatives. These scenarios are fatalistic. He knows the future, but he can’t change the outcome. At best, he can prevent a particular tragedy, but his intervention will simply postpone the tragedy. When fate is blocked, it takes an alternate route.

iv) To some degree, this has real-world analogies. There are parents whose child was born with a fatal degenerative disease. The doctor tells them their child will die in roughly so many years. They live with that fateful knowledge. It haunts them.

Similarly, you may have a friend or relative who’s diagnosed with incurable cancer.  You know he’s doomed and he knows he’s doomed.

v) In principle, there are two opposite ways of responding. One way is to make the most of the remaining time. Because the time is short, you spend more time with your doomed friend, child, parent, sibling.

vi) Another way is to keep your distance. Avoid getting too attached, because that will make the separation more painful.

vii) Let’s shift to the hypothetical situation of knowing in advance who is going to hell. If that’s someone you care about, your days will be full of foreboding. One question is whether you know something he doesn’t. In this hypothetical, do you know he is doomed, while he is blissfully ignorant of his dire fate? Would you tell him, or would you keep that to yourself?

viii) If we knew their fate, that would cast a shadow over our time with them. That would darken our days. On the other hand, we wouldn’t take them for granted. We wouldn’t act as if they will always be a part of our lives. We’d be less inclined to neglect them.

Their foreseen plight would tend to evoke compassion. We’d feel sorry for them.

ix) It would also be humbling. We’d vividly realize that it could just as well be us. We don’t deserve God’s grace.

x) Of course, we’d see still be seeing the reprobate for what they are, not what they will become. If we saw their hellish character in full bloom, that would be repellent.

Knowledge of a person’s future can cut both ways. If you knew the kind of man that Joseph Stalin would grow up to be, you’d certainly look at him differently. At the very least, you’d be ambivalent.

xi) Atheists typically think all of us are doomed. All of us are living in the shadow of oblivion. Everyday the long lethal shadow edges closer. We know ahead of time that we are going to die, and when we die, that’s it. The threat is inexorable. 

xii) This, in turn, can lead to a ruthless posture when there’s a conflict between your survival and another’s survival. If, sooner or later, everyone will pass into oblivion, then what’s wrong with killing somebody to buy yourself extra time?

What does Fred believe? Does he believe in the immortality of the soul? The resurrection of the body? Given how liberal he is, why would he believe in one or both of those pillars of the afterlife, when he rejects Biblical eschatology in general? 

Prayer of Manasseh

What is the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture?

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

The problem with this list is how the second paragraph conflicts with the first. The list omits the Prayer of Manasseh. Yet the Prayer of Manasseh was included in traditional editions of the Vulgate, which the second paragraph deems authentic, complete with the warning that “no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”

By the standard of the second paragraph, the list in the first paragraph is defective. Yet the stated intention of the first paragraph was to specify which books were canonical, “lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod.”