Roman Catholic Warlords

Who would believe it, but Roman Catholic bloggers are said to have become "self-referential warlords"? 

Yet here is the ugly truth nobody wants to confront.  By its very nature, the Catholic blogosphere is an insular echo chamber.

The way the Catholic blogosphere is designed is so that you will never have to get any news you don't want to.  Blogs typically link only with blogs they agree with.  Patheos in particular is mostly an insular community:  they spend time congratulating each other in front of a mostly friendly audience.  Very rarely do people link to an alternative viewpoint, because a lot of times that alternative viewpoint is spiritually dangerous. 

Why is this happening?  
Whether we like it or not, the Catholic Church, especially in America, is undergoing an institutional collapse.  This collapse did not happen as a result of splendid leadership.  While some of it was out of the control of Church leaders, many of the declines the Church in America faces were conscious choices that had the opposite result of what was predicted.  

When an institution collapses, a power vacuum occurs.  As nature abhors a vacuum, various personalities will attempt to undertake the mantle of authority.  Since none of them are strong enough to provide centralized leadership (as the leaders themselves are normally products of the culture behind such a collapse), what you typically get is the equivalent of commentator warlords who carve up their own little niche kingdom. In their kingdom, they are the guardians of orthodoxy. 

They will tell their subjects what is true, and what isn't.  They will also remind them (in ways subtle and not so) that without them, it's a pretty scary world out there.  If you don't have their commentary, you have to get it from them. They will lie to you. "Pope Francis" [then-Cardinal Bergoglio] called it something else.  He called it "The Self-Referential Church." 

When we descend into warlordism, we are too busy trying to defend our little fiefdoms, and only give glory to members of the same tribe.

http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2014/05/blogging-and-closing-of-catholic-mind.html

HT: Steve Hays 

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 2

The source of synergistic justification and holy water

I’m continuing the Gregg Allison’s explication of “nature and grace” in Roman Catholicism that was started here:

In one sense, these two divergent views reflect in part the different models of the nature-grace relationship as developed by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas: “[W]hereas the Augustinian tradition has stressed the concept of natura vitiate [spoiled or fallen nature], therefore underlining the pervasive and corrupting reality of sin and the utter primacy of grace, the Thomistic tradition has instead insisted on the inner resources of nature’s capacitas dei [capacity for God], giving a more positive account of its intrinsic disposition towards the elevating operations of grace” (citing De Chirico, pg 228. See footnote [1] below for more information).

On this issue, [following the Reformers] evangelical theology follows the Augustinian tradition, with its pessimistic view of nature because of the devastating impact of sin on it, while Catholic theology follows the Thomistic tradition, with its relatively optimistic perspective on nature and its openness to and capacity for grace.

Is Mary the woman in Rev 12?

Who should we believe–lay Catholic pop apologists or their religious superiors? I'll side with the bishops:

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12

E.T.

Another point that young-age creationists would raise is the idea of the universal Fall.  Creationists (like me) believe that human sin altered creation so that now "the whole creation has been groaning" (Rom. 8:22).  That groaning came from the curse placed on creation because of Adam's sin.  So if there is intelligent life on another planet, then that would seem to be part of the creation that is groaning, which means they've also been cursed because of human sin.  That seems unfair.
We could also look at the passages of the New Testament that emphasize that Christ died once for sin (I Pet. 3:18, Heb. 9:28, Rom. 6:10), which is taken to imply that there would be no redemption available to intelligent life on other planets, since Christ died here and not there.  Otherwise, He would have died twice, and that's not what the Bible says.  This flows into the exclusivity claim of Christianity: Christ is the only way to God.  Religious pluralism is false; therefore, there can be no alien Jesus, because that would be a second way to God. 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2015/02/reader-question-but-what-about.html

This is a very outre debate. I have no stake in the answer. The question is purely speculative. And I have no opinion regarding the existence of other physical lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. If they exist, they too are the product of divine creation. 

The question holds some hypothetical significance because you have Christians who imagine that this scenario would falsify the Christian faith. 

i) In my opinion, the fall directly impacts the human condition and the angelic order. Angels are not alive in the biological sense. Strictly speaking, the "universe" denotes the physical cosmos. Angels are not a part of the universe, although they are able to interface with the universe.  

ii) I think the basic error is hermeneutical: overextending passages whose intended scope concerns life on earth (or fallen angels). I don't think Biblical language speaks to the issue of extraterrestrials one way or the other. It has a terrestrial orientation. Not "universal" in the cosmic sense. 

iii) If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, they didn't fall in Adam. Adam wasn't their progenitor or federal head. 

iv) In principle, I don't think Biblical language precludes the Son from becoming incarnate at more than one time or place to redeem fallen aliens, if such exist. For the intended range of reference concerns the unrepeatability of the Incarnation with respect to God becoming human (more precisely, the Son assuming a human nature) to redeem fallen humans. In context, he died once for all time for human sinners. It's unique in that regard. The status of aliens falls outside the purview of that discussion. 

v) Christ is the only way to God because humans are sinners who require a mediator. A redeemer. Unfallen aliens don't require a mediator or redeemer. 

In an E.T. context, there's still the same God, the same Trinity, the same eternal Son. That is universal, in the cosmic sense–or even a multiverse.

Does God play dominoes?

While God’s plan for your friend’s parents included the fact that they would die in this airline crash, He did not causally predetermine it. His will for their lives was evidently, not that they should die years apart after lingering battles with illness or pain, but that they should be taken together quickly to His side. Their deaths fit into God’s providential plan for human history, which is to establish His Kingdom among men. God has good reasons for permitting them to die in this crash, otherwise He would not have allowed it. But as you know from reading The Only Wise God, God’s sovereign providence over human history does not imply His causally determining everything that happens. This event was the result of an incomprehensible multitude of free human choices which God did not determine. If her parents had decided not to travel on this flight because of a dream, then God’s plan would have taken a different course. His providential planning would have to have taken into account that free choice instead of the choices He did have to work with. God’s providential plan does not override human free choices but rather takes account of them. 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/indonesia-air-asia-qz8501-and-the-problem-of-

That's a strange argument. God cannot prevent a plane crash without overriding our freewill? 

Let's grant libertarian freedom for the sake of argument. Let's play along with that assumption. Let's consider some causes of plane crashes:

i) Terrorism would be the most direct example. A passenger smuggles a bomb onboard. A pilot deliberately crashes the plane. A mechanic sabotages the plane. In each case, the agent intends the (dire) outcome. According to the freewill defense, God must respect human choices. 

But even on its own grounds, there's a problem with that argument. Take the Air France model of the A1380, which seats 538 passengers. You have one terrorist who wills the plane to crash over against more than 500 passengers and crew who will the opposite. God can't respect everyone's will in the case of conflicting volitions. Why does he side with one terrorist?

ii) A less direct example would be human error (e.g. pilot error, air traffic controller error, a design flaw, faulty maintenance). These involve free choices. However, in this case, the agent doesn't intend the outcome. The plane crash is an unforeseen consequence of human choices If the agent knew in advance the end-result of his action, he'd be appalled. He would avoid that error. 

How does it violate human freewill for God to correct a short-sighted or uninformed choice which the agent never intended? 

iii) Then there are impersonal causes (e.g. metal fatigue, bird strikes, lightning strikes, downdrafts) that don't involve human choice. Why is God not allowed to override metal fatigue or windshear? He's not overriding the freewill of the weather or machinery, is he? 

Sure, Craig can say that if passengers hadn't chosen to board the doomed plane, they would not have died. But if God mustn't override human choices at all, then how can he ever answer prayer? Nearly every answered prayer will intersect with a multitude of human choices at the time or down the line. How can answered prayer be consistent with every human volition that's impacted by answered prayer? Isn't Craig's position Deistic? God flicks the first domino (creation), but after that he can't interrupt the domino effect (i.e. actual human choices). Once he flicks the first domino, his hands are tied thereafter. He just watches them fall.

Some standing here will not taste death

27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Mt 16:27-28). 

12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev 1:12-16,20).

Mt 16:28 is a familiar "problem passage." Did Jesus mispredict the future? 

It's instructive to compare the Matthean prediction with Rev 1. John was one of the disciples whom Jesus addressed on that occasion (in Mt 16). Before John died, Jesus came to him. His appearance is glorious. There's even the angelic motif. Jesus comes with angels (i.e. stars=angels). 

This is a personal appearance. But it is, of course, distinct from the Second Coming–which is a global, one-time, endtime event. So John did not taste death until he saw Jesus come to him, in royal imagery that parallels the Matthean prediction. (By the same token, Jesus came to Paul [Acts 9, 22, 26], to instigate his conversion.)

Likewise, in his dictated letters to the seven churches (Rev 2-3), Jesus threatens to "come" to some of them in judgment. But in context, that hardly seems to be the end of the world. It simply marks the demise of that particular fellowship. 

We need to distinguish at least two different ways in which Jesus can come to people. There's a local, individualized appearance, and then there's a global return. Both are personal. But the former is repeatable whereas the latter is climactic. Between Jesus coming within church history (i.e. objective visions) and Jesus coming at the end of church history (i.e. the return of Christ). 

Some Protestants misunderstand sola scriptura. They treat the Bible as an encyclopedia. Unless they can find something in Scripture, it never happened. This often leads to very creative prooftexting. But the Bible does not intend or pretend to record everything that exists. 

Jesus may well have appeared to other disciples in the same way he appeared to John. It's just that John wrote about it. 

"The intercession of the saints"

Fundamentalists often challenge the Catholic practice of asking saints and angels to pray on our behalf. But the Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us.
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.  

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

A glaring problem with this appeal is that Rev 5:8 doesn't say that Christians on earth were praying to Christians in heaven. The prayers of the saints in 5:8 (par. 6:9-11; 8:3-4) are prayers of martyred Christians in heaven. They aren't taking requests from Christians on earth. That's not in the text or context.

"Soon" or "suddenly"?

http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/will-jesus-come-soon-like-a-taxi/

The "Church" or the "church"?

http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-mild-gripe-about-catholic-rhetoric.html

Selfish genes

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/non-darwinian-biologist-rupert-sheldrake-takes-on-darwinian-atheist-daniel-dennett/

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 1

When Protestants think of the various topics or loci that comprise the various systems of “systematic theology” that have been studied over the centuries, the lists of these loci might include the “prolegomena” (which might encompass a discussion of philosophy and a doctrine of Scripture or a doctrine of “revelation”) – and following that we might find the doctrines of God, the Trinity, creation, humanity, sin, the person of Christ, the atonement, the Holy Spirit, soteriology, “the church”, “last things” – we tend to see these things as inter-related, but each having their own “self-contained-ness” as well.

In Roman Catholicism, which (following De Chirico and Allison) may and should be thought of as a “system”, there are two “core doctrines” or ideas or themes which underlay all of the other loci -- these two are what Allison has referred to as the nature-grace interdependence.

Now, one of the first things I’ll say is that, as Reformed believers, we tend to think we know what is meant by “grace” – after all, we talk about things like “salvation by grace” and the “doctrines of grace”.

But the word “grace” in the context of all of church history has a long and convoluted history and meaning, and we do need to be careful of context if we are to understand what is meant by “grace” in any given instance. For example:

Minimal facts not enough

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/02/minimal_facts_are_not_enough.html

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

http://www.discovery.org/f/11121

Universalism and atheism: separated at birth

Universalists and atheists share this in common: apologists for each position devote enormous amounts of time, passion, and energy to attacking opposing positions and laboring to make everyone agree with their viewpoint–even though, if they are right, what anyone happens to believe or do in this life makes absolutely no ultimate difference in the long-run.

What does AHA stand for?

AHA has become terribly schizophrenic of late. On the one hand you have statements which tell us what AHA stands for and differentiates AHA from the prolife movement, on the one hand, and violent agitators on the other hand. For instance:

http://abolishhumanabortion.com/about/who-we-are/

http://abolitionistradio.com/Declaration%20of%20Sentiments%20International%20Coalition%20of%20Abolitionist%20Societies.pdf

On the other hand, you have this recent disclaimer:

Abolish Human Abortion February 19 at 12:48pm · Edited ·

Important note regarding relationships and various goings-on taking place between and among various abolitionists.
Please understand that "AHA" is not some sort of an organization that can make official pronouncements about who is and is not an abolitionist, or Christian, or sinner or anything like that.
When individual abolitionists or groups of abolitionists do make such pronouncements they are not to be take as though they represent some sort if official "AHA" position, decision, or pronouncement.
This is not to say that all such pronouncements are right or wrong, it is just to say that this is not how AHA works.
There isn't some kind of board or group of leaders that gets together and decides to practice some sort of top down church discipline or Christian accountability with any and everyone who adopts the abolitionist ideology.
Individual abolitionists and abolitionist societies can and should hold each other accountable to live God honoring Christ following lives because that is just something that Christians are called to do, but there is no AHA overboard or leadership in existence to determine or approve all the interactions which go on among individual abolitionists. Similarly, there isn't some sort of list describing who is and is not a part of "AHA."  

https://www.facebook.com/AbolishHumanAbortion/posts/847156942016988

That's the reductio ad absurdum of refusing to be an "organization":

i) The disclaimer is self-refuting. An anonymous spokesman for AHA assures us that no one can really speak of AHA in general. But he thereby disqualifies himself from representing AHA.

ii) That's how AHA loses control of the message. An abolitionist becomes whatever any particular abolitionist thinks, says, or does. The answer varies depending on who you ask. 

iii) AHA can't have it both ways. Either it stands for something, in contrast to something different, or else it stands for nothing in general inasmuch as every abolitionist is free to define the movement's ideology for himself. 

iv) AHA seems to suffer from growing pains. I assume the founding chapter or mother chapter (Norman, OK?) originally gave it direction and definition. But since every chapter is equal to every other chapter, at best the founders can only speak for their own chapter. In fact, it's unclear if there's even a leadership structure within each chapter. 

For the moment I'm not saying if that's good or bad. I'm just pointing out that AHA has no core identity. It continuously evolves or metastasizes. It calls itself an "ideology," yet it has no board of directors or group of leaders who can make authoritative pronouncements about the ideological content or boundaries. 

In a sense, that may give AHA plausible deniability, but at the cost of becoming increasingly indefinable and contradictory. 

Intolerant universalism

What's ironic about this is that Keith DeRose is a prominent universalist. For a universalist, Keith sure is intolerant. Shouldn't a universalist be more inclusive? Why is he so judgmental? In realty, Keith is a knee-jerk academic first and a universalist second. In common with most Internet Arminians, he simultaneously preaches universal love while compiling an enemies' list:

Keith DeRose February 21 at 3:43pm ·

One could have a lot of fun here with the many things one doesn't really know about Scott Walker, but I'm too disgusted to have fun

Scott Walker: 'I Really Don't Know' Whether Obama Loves America

Just a day after refusing to comment on whether President Obama loves America, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he didn't know...

TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM

Keith DeRose I don't know. Giuliani made his stupid comments at a dinner featuring Walker. In fact, I read Walker was just a couple of seats away from Giuliani at the time. Reporters who wouldn't ask if he agreed would probably be not doing their jobs.

" The question came following comments by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who said he believes President Obama doesn't love America. Giuliani made the comments Wednesday night during a reception for Walker in Manhattan. "
February 21 at 8:51pm · 

Keith DeRose " [Scott!] Walker also told the paper that, “no,” Giuliani wasn’t out of line with the comments. "
February 21 at 9:20pm · Like  

Is Obama Muslim?

My operating assumption is that Obama is either a religious pluralist or a closet atheist. He may act just Christian enough not to alienate black voters, many of whom are churchgoers. 

It's a tricky balancing act inasmuch as many Democrats are anti-Christian. Of course, many Democrats will vote for the Dem candidate no matter what. 

However, KBJ makes some good points:

http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2015/02/religion.html

DHS

In DC we have the annual game of chicken over funding bills and a threatened gov't "shutdown." Will Congressional Republicans be blamed if Obama vetoes the bill?

i) It's harder for Obama to defend a veto that's predicated on his legally dubious and deeply unpopular refusal to enforce immigration laws. 

ii) Even if Congressional Republicans are blamed, the 2016 election will be dominated by presidential politics. How many voters will remember a temporary DHS shutdown? 

iii) A shutdown of DHS is very different from a general shutdown of the Federal gov't. 

Keep in mind, too, that voters who panic over Federal gov't shutdowns rarely vote Republican anyway.

iv) When I mouse over to the DHS website, what do I find? It includes "Immigration Services" and "Border Protection," as well as ICE (fair amount of duplication right there).

That would be significant if, in fact, these agencies were actually enforcing the law rather than breaking the law. Under Obama, they are funneling illegal immigrants into the country. Indeed, these Federal agencies have become major official traffickers of illegal aliens.

Then there's TSA. Again, that would be significant if in fact TSA was protecting passengers from hijackers. But due to political correctness, TSA harasses passengers least likely to hijack a plane while ignoring passengers most likely to hijack a plane. Also, it repeatedly fails random security tests. 

Then there's the Secret Service. Somehow I doubt the President will lose his security detail in a temporary shutdown. 

Mind you, under Obama, the Secret Service was falling down on the job, anyway. 

There's also a thing called Office of Intelligence and Analysis. However, between the NSA, CIA, FBI, and military intelligence, we already have tremendous duplication vis-a-vis domestic and foreign intelligence collection and analysis. 

Then there's FEMA. However, that's been criticized as a bungling bureaucracy. 

So what do we have to lose in a temporary shutdown of DHS? Heck, why not make it permanent?

Momentary afflictions

Before we an assess the problem of divine hiddenness, we first need to disambiguate the problem.

i) For atheists and agnostics, this problem constitutes evidence for God's nonexistence.

But I think that's off the mark. I think it poses a problem, not for God's existence, but God's benevolence. 

To illustrate: suppose I'm hiking in a remote, unpopulated wilderness. I stumble across a log cabin. There's no doubt that a human being built it. This is not a natural phenomenon.

Suppose, moreover, that it's not an abandoned or dilapidated cabin. To the contrary, it's well-maintained. In fact, there's smoke coming from the chimney.

So I naturally infer that it's occupied. Yet, when I repeatedly knock on the door, no one comes to the door. Surely someone is inside. Or even if they stepped out briefly, they should return shortly. Are they deaf? Are they afraid to open the door to strangers? 

I think there's abundant evidence for God's existence, as well as God's ongoing activity in human history. That's not the nub of the problem.

ii) I think the problem puts great strain on freewill theism, with its commitment to God's general benevolence or omnibenevolence. If God wants everyone to believe in him and have a "relationship" with him, then surely he could do more to reach out to each individual.

One stock explanation is that if the evidence was unassailable, then that would overpower our freewill. But that's an implausible counterargument:

a) For one thing, if the evidence for his existence is ambiguous, then we're justified in not believing in God, in not having a "relationship" with him. In that case, his means are counterproductive to his ends.

b) Moreover, this fails to distinguish between intellectual  belief and Christian faith. Even if the evidence compelled us to believe in God, that doesn't compel trust in God. There's more to Christian faith than mere belief. Even if the evidence was rationally "coercive," whether or not we accept the invitation (as it were) is a separate question.  So the problem remains. 

By the same token, this is not a particular problem for Reformed theism inasmuch as many Calvinists deny that God wills to save everyone. Indeed, God wills for some people to disbelieve. 

iii) From a Reformed standpoint, this is a problem for believers, not unbelievers. It calls into question, not God's existence, but his benevolence towards them (i.e. believers). 

iv) Although the problem of divine hiddenness was only formulated in the late 20C, it's been around for millennia. Indeed, the OT prophets, Psalter, and Wisdom literature bear extensive witness to this problem. This is nothing new or surprising.

In that respect, it's consistent with Biblical theism. This is something Scripture has taught us to expect.

v) It does, however, pose a prima facie inconsistency in another respect: God commands us to pray, encourages us to pray, promises great things if we pray.

In that respect, Scripture fosters an expectation that God will intercede. This is not just a case of Christians being presumptuous. Rather, God gets our hopes up, only to dash our hopes. 

vi) This, of course, goes to the familiar problem of unanswered prayer. Scripture speaks in generalities. But divine threats and promises are often implicitly qualified, and sometimes explicitly qualified–which, in turn, implicitly qualifies the otherwise unqualified statements. So that's not fundamentally inconsistent. It does, though, create a practical tension–by leaving the believer in a state of uncertainty. 

vii) We need to distinguish between the conceptual problem of divine hiddenness and the existential problem of divine hiddenness. Even if a philosophical theologian could solve the conceptual problem, that wouldn't solve the existential problem inasmuch as most Christians and Jews don't have access to his brilliant solution. So they continue to wander in the darkness.

viii) Moreover, there's probably a sense in which we're not meant to understand it. It's just a fact that God sometimes chooses to behave in ways that believers find frustrating and aggravating. Behave in ways that provoke resentment. Deliberately leaving them to stumble in the dark. Behave in ways that cause them to ask "Why?" while simultaneously robbing them of any discernible answer. 

As I say, this is widely attested in the Bible. It's not just the raging apostate. 

God puts us in that predicament. If we knew the answer, it would cease to be so challenging. It's the cluelessness that makes it such a trial. 

ix) Some philosophical theologians appeal to a soul-making theodicy to address the problem. However, a difficulty with that move is that, in many cases, the effect is the opposite of sanctification. It makes believers bitter. Less worshipful. At least in many instances. There are some saintly exceptions.  

x) To some extent, or perhaps entirely, the eschatological compensations will simply moot the problem. At that point, maybe we won't even care what the answer is. It will melt away, like fleeing shadows in the rising dawn. 

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us (Rom 8:18). 

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (2 Cor 4:17). 

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,Nor have entered into the heart of manThe things which God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor 2:9).

We live in a meaningful world; God gives it meaning.

Creation and Grace

Stephen Wolfe makes this argument:

If Protestants want to reject modernity, then they ought to reject the nominalist assumptions that go into religious observance outside of revelation. This means rediscovering the regulative principle of worship as the means of reconnecting oneself to God’s creation. Only through this principle will one properly join the choir of creation.

Think of C.S. Lewis’s “Great Dance”. Although Lewis is perhaps guilty of the thing that Stephen argues against here:

How the Regulative Principle of Worship Affirms, Supports, and Ensures a Meaningful World.

I think this is one of the most clear and important things he has written. In fact, this piece helps us to think through God’s program in this world, for man and creation, from beginning to end. He says:

This argument is directed at Protestants. For I can see how Roman Catholics can answer this. They would simply say that the Church has the divine authority to recognize and make certain ceremonies meaningful, and by this authority God becomes active in the event. So I think that Roman Catholics are consistent in this regard.

Of course, the idea that the [Roman Catholic] Church has such authority is false, but at least they are consistent. Protestants, on the other hand, do not have the [JB note: I would put the word “benefit” in quotes] benefit of such authority. We could form fuzzy notions of pursuing “catholicity,” but this suffers for want of clear criteria and it cannot legitimately be anything more than an attitude toward pre-reformational traditions.

In making this argument, I think Stephen is showing the difference as well between what we might call “God’s metaphysic” [my term] vs the “classical metaphysics” of Aristotle and Aquinas. Because in truth, “God’s metaphysic”, however that is characterized, is based on that which is given in his own special revelation, and not from the cobbled-together thoughts of human philosophers over time.

The principle is evident in what follows:

Creation and miracles

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/02/creation-doesnt-have-to-be-different.html

Lydia McGrew interview

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10555

Anachronistic Assumptions and the Documentary Hypothesis

http://jimhamilton.info/2015/02/13/anachronistic-assumptions-and-the-documentary-hypothesis/

In retrospect

A striking feature of Biblical narrative is the omniscient narrator. Unbelievers treat this as evidence that Bible stories are fictional. How could the narrator read their minds? On top of that, how could he read the minds of people who lived and died centuries before he was born?

The orthodox explanation is divine revelation: God shared some of his knowledge with the narrator. 

I'd like to illustrate that principle with some analogies. In fiction, there are two kinds of suspense. One is where the audience doesn't know the outcome in advance. An example would be a whodunit. That's why a murder mystery is the kind of thing you typically watch or read just once. As soon as the mystery is solved, as soon as the suspense is dispelled, it loses interest. 

But another kind of suspense is just the opposite: dramatic irony. That's where the audience knows something a character doesn't. For instance, the audience may be acutely conscious of the fact that a character is in danger, while the character is obvious to the danger. A viewer is tempted to yell at the screen to warn the hapless character. 

Although this is a literary convention, it has real-world analogues. Take The Diary of Anne Frank. What makes this so poignant is the ominous fact that the reader knows something she doesn't. 

This is a coming-of-age story. She's young and hopeful. If they can just wait out the Nazis, she has so much to live for.

But the reader knows that she is doomed. It's as if the reader knows how the story ends before she does, even though we're reading this decades later. And that's because, at the time of writing, she didn't know how her own story was going to end. 

The reader is like a time-traveler from the future who has a conversation with her before her family goes into hiding. We know it's futile. But we smile politely. 

Another example is Becky Lynn Black's "Our Cancer Journey." She's the late wife of David Alan Black. She was a missionary, and the child of missionaries. 

She chronicles her battle with cancer. Her first entry is 9/9/09. Her last entry is 7/4/13. 

In a sense, the reader knows that she's dying long before she does. We know when it ends. We read the earlier entries with the benefit of hindsight. She, of course, didn't have that retrospective outlook at the time of writing. She was looking forward while we are looking back. We know her situation as hopeless from the outset. That casts a shadow over the entire reading experience. 

In situations like this, the reader has a kind of God's-eye view of the proceedings. Almost as if we're above time. 

There's a classic X-Files episode ("Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose") in which a character knows the future. And it makes him miserable. Fatalistic. In a fallen world, it's a terrible thing to see the future. 

That's fiction, but as I've noted, this perspective as real-world counterparts, even apart from inspiration. 

An Interesting Passage

Due to heavy snowfall, I have a two-hour delay before heading in to work this morning. I decided to use a bit of the extra time reading through the life of Abraham. As I read through the passage on the rescue of Lot from the town of Sodom, I read something I had missed before.

Most readers here will be familiar with the story already, but for those who are not I will offer a quick recap. God appeared in bodily form to Abraham in Genesis 18. With Him were two other angels (they are described as angels in Genesis 19:15, for example). God told Abraham that He was going to destroy Sodom. At the end of Genesis 18, Abraham asks if God would spare Sodom if fifty righteous men could be found. The LORD agrees to that. Abraham then asks, “What if five are missing?” and again the LORD says He would not destroy the city if there were forty-five righteous men. Abraham continues until the end of the chapter, where the LORD agrees not to destroy the city if there are but ten righteous men.

After this, the two angels depart and go to Sodom. Lot finds them in the town square and offers them lodging, but the men of Sodom want to take the angels by force. The angels end up rescuing Lot, pulling him into the house and shutting the door, then striking the men of Sodom with blindness. They then tell Lot to gather his family and get out of town. Lot asks if, instead of running to the hills, he can go to the town of Zoar instead, and this is granted to him. After Lot flees, Sodom is destroyed.

So what is the part that I missed before? It is a subtle point located in these two verses:

As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city (Genesis 19:15-16, ESV).

We are often told by our Arminian brethren that God respects our freedom so much that He would allow us to go to hell rather than violate our wills. Yet here, God was not willing that Lot should perish, and forcibly removed him and his family from the city. Again, Lot did not choose to depart; he delayed. The angels warned him he had to move and when he did not, the angels seized him.

And this violation of Lot’s will, far from being described as negative, is described as “the LORD being merciful to him.” Just as a Calvinist argues that it is not loving for a parent to stand on the side of the road and beckon his child to come to safety because true love is running out into traffic to actually save the child, regardless of what the child wants, so too, here God’s loving action is to rescue Lot even if it means He has to seize the man and forcibly remove him from the city. When God wishes to save someone, He will do so. He does not need our permission.

And thank God for it!

"Coptic Christians not Christians"

Do Southern Baptist leaders and other evangelicals really not know what a Christian is or how you become one? Is it being born into an ethnic group that denies the dual-nature of Christ in his full deity and humanity? Is it embracing a meritorious, works-based salvation nearly identical to that of the Roman Catholic church? Is it in aggressively denying salvation by a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ? We ask because that’s what Coptic ‘Christians’ believe. This really isn’t new, and we have to wonder why our leaders don’t know what Coptics believe and if they do, what on Earth makes them think they should be categorized as Christians. 

http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/02/16/coptic-christians-not-christians-southern-baptist-leaders-need-reminded/

Several issues:

i) The interpretation of Oriental Christology is very intricate. I wonder if JD Hall has actually bothered to inform himself on the permutations of that debate:

https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/category/official-statements/

ii) Many evangelical laymen have technically heretical views of the Trinity and the person of Christ. Does Hall think only theologians have saving faith?

iii) In addition, the classific of heresy is often a traditional definition, based on Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic paradigms. For instance, Reformed theologians like Paul Helm and B. B. Warfield would be classified as heretics because they deny eternal generation and Nicene subordinationism. 

The Eastern Orthodox would classify Protestants in general, including JD Hall in particular, as heretics. So let's avoid a self-incriminating standard of comparison. 

iv) Obviously there are lots of nominal Christians. However, I generally respect Middle Eastern Christians because they've retained their identity over the centuries despite enormous pressure to cave. It would be so easy for them to convert to Islam. 

v) I don't know if ISIS gave the Copts a choice between martyrdom and conversion to Islam. If so, the fact that they chose imminent martyrdom is a further testament to their faith.

vi) In addition, some ways of dying are far more fearsome than others. To have your head sawed off must be one of the most agonizing and terrifying forms of execution. It would be understandable if a true believer lost his nerve in the face of that prospect. Consider how Peter lost his nerve.

vii) I make allowance for the opportunities that people have. Middle Eastern Christian laymen don't have the same opportunity to revise their theology as American evangelicals have. 

To take a comparison, you couldn't have a Calvin without a Luther, and you couldn't have a Luther without a Valla or Biel. Were there no true believers between the death of St. John and Luther? 

viii) One doesn't have to vouch for the personal piety of each Coptic victim to exercise a general judgment of charity. When Muslims murder professing Christians in Africa and Asia, must we presume they weren't true believers? Is our standing policy to assume the worst?  

ix) There's a difference between faith in Christ alone and faith in faith alone. Faith in Christ alone may be theologically unreflective. It is not, in the first instance, what we believe about faith but what we believe about ourselves in relation to what we believe about our Savior. Sola fide is theologically self-reflective. There's a necessary place for that in orthodox theology. But it's not the essence of saving faith. Faith is not its own object. 

ISIS and imprecation

I'm going to comment on two related statements. 

Tentative Apologist
@RandalRauser
The imprecatory psalmist gives us this worldview: there are good people and evil people; God loves the good people and hates the evil ones; God anticipates with relish destroying the evil people; we too, if we are good, should hate the evil people and relish God destroying them.
The imprecatory psalms describes people in binary terms: good and evil; they say God hates the wicked and laughs at their destruction; the imprecatory psalmist likewise relishes their destruction and calls down curses on them. 

i) It's not as if we're confronted by two sets of contradictory commands. The Imprecatory Psalms aren't divine commands to harm your enemy. So they don't run directly counter to divine or dominical commands to love your enemy.

ii) The Imprecatory Psalms are not about exacting personal revenge, but calling on God to uphold justice. They leave the matter in his hands. 

iii) Suppose, in spite of earnest prayers for his repentance, your enemy never repents? What then? Is it wrong to agree with God about the just deserts that rightly await your impenitent enemy?

A Christian can pray or sing the Imprecatory Psalms hypothetically or counterfactually. He can pray that God grant repentance to his enemies, or more generally, to those who harm the innocent. 

But many enemies don't repent, despite of frequent, heartfelt prayer offered on their behalf. So a Christian can also pray that God mete out justice according to their works, if they persist in patterns of oppression and injustice. 

There's no cognitive dissonance in those two positions. They aren't logically or theologically dichotomous. 

Moving along: 

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/02/isis-and-the-imprecatory-psalm.php
i) I think it's good to begin by bracketing the specific issue of the imprecatory Psalms and discussing general principles. The relevance of the imprecatory Psalms to Christians has its own theological and hermeneutical complications which can be a distraction. It isn't necessary to settle that question to address the issue more broadly. 

Even if the Bible didn't contain imprecatory Psalms, the issue would still arise. It's possible and initially preferable to consider the question from the standpoint of general ethical and theological principles.

ii) One question is why do we pray for anything? Off-the-cuff, I'd say there are two basic reasons:

a) I pray for what I'm unable to do myself. I ask God because only God is in a position to bring it about.

b) Even though I can do it myself, and may end up doing it myself, I first pray to God to acknowledge his authority in my life. He has the prerogative to make the choice for me or to block my choice.

iii) In the case of ISIS, one potential reason for asking God to forcibly intervene is that that's not the sort of thing I can do myself. That's the kind of thing we normally pray for: things we are powerless to bring about on our own. 

In that respect, ISIS is the kind of situation we normally pray about. We usually pray for divine intervention in cases like that.

Of course, there's still the question of what kind of divine intervention it is fitting to pray for.  

iv) Another issue is whether I should do something I'd never ask God to do. Take a self-defense situation. Suppose I have the wherewithal to defend myself. Maybe a violent house-burglar breaks into my home and threatens my family. I have a gun and I shoot him.

Suppose, though, I don't have a gun. It's odd to contend that it's right for me to do what it's wrong for me to ask God to do. If it's right for me to harm the assailant, why is it wrong to ask God to harm the assailant? If it's right for me to disable the assailant, why is it wrong to pray that God do so in case I'm impotent to do so?

Or suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US would be justified in militarily intervening to destroy ISIS. If so, why would that be right, but it would be wrong to ask God to do the very same thing? Why is it right for me to do what is wrong for God to do? And if it's not wrong for God to do it, why is it wrong to ask God to do it? 

From what I can tell, Wynne's position lacks moral consistency. 

v) Another ambiguity which routinely crops up in these debates is the identity of the "enemy." Suppose we define an enemy as someone (or group) who harms me or intends to harm me if he gets the chance. He has the means, motive, and opportunity. 

Now, I'm an American living on the mainland. At the moment, ISIS is not a direct threat to me. At the moment, ISIS is not a personal threat to my loved ones. 

If I were to pray for their destruction, that's not because ISIS is dangerous or harmful to me, but because ISIS is harmful or dangerous to others.

It's like the difference between defending myself against a mugger and intervening to defend a little old lady who's accosted by a mugger. It's about concern for a second party.

To say we should love our enemies in this context misses the point, because the enemies in question are not my enemies. Rather, this is more about neighbor-love. 

vi) Prayer is not a forced option. It's not as if we can only pray for one outcome. Nothing prevents me from praying thusly:

"Lord, I pray that you will convert the members of ISIS to Christianity–but if you don't, I pray that you will destroy them before they destroy more innocent men, women, and children."

We can pray for two different outcomes. We can prioritize the outcomes in our prayer. "Lord, do this–but if not, do that." 

Some people have a simplistic view of prayer, 

vii) However, let's be realistic: when, in the history of the world, has God converted an entire army–or even a vicious head-of-state? It never or nearly never ever happens. That's not God's modus operandi. 

God sometimes converts unlikely individuals under extraordinary circumstances. Take the claim that some Muslims convert to Christian due to dreams or visions of Christ.

However, armies are collectives. ISIS is a collective. Although God sometimes converts a massive collective, that rarely if ever happens overnight. That takes generations. 

viii) Incidentally, although it may sound counterintuitive to say so, cursing an unbeliever can be evangelistic. Some people will never come to Christ so long as things are going well for them. It takes a personal calamity to shake them out of their pride and complacency. In principle, you can pray that God make an unbeliever suffer, not because you bear him ill-will, but because he needs to be miserable before he will turn to God. 

ix) Suppose that Wynne is right. Asking God to destroy militant Muslims is wrong. What if well-meaning Christians are mistaken when they ask God to do so?

Even if that's the case, what harm does it do? It's not as if we're forcing God's hand. God won't respond: "I was afraid you'd ask me that! I was hoping to avoid that, but I can't refuse your request. Against my will, against my better judgment, I'm bound to do as you ask. Your wish is my command."

Surely every Christian prays misguided prayers for time to time. Prayer is a paradox. We don't know ahead of time what to pray for. If we did, then in some cases that's not what we'd pray for in the first place. 

Of course, you shouldn't intentionally pray for the wrong thing. And your prayer ought to be informed by sound theology.

But I think some theologians are too inhibited about the perceived risk of misguided prayer. The world won't come to an end. 

x) Now let's briefly shift to the imprecatory Psalms. To begin with, I'm not clear on what it means to pray the imprecatory Psalms against ISIS. Does that mean reciting an imprecatory Psalm, but mentally redirecting it towards ISIS? Does that mean mentally or verbally substituting ISIS for the original referent?

xi) One of Wynne's problem is that he tries to ride two different horses. On the one hand he says these Psalms are timebound. They were tied to the unique cultic holiness of ancient Israel. That's past. That's unrepeatable. 

On the other hand he says they're typological and eschatological. Future-oriented. But it's hard to see how they can be both.

xii) He relates the imprecatory Psalms to sacred space. But what in general do the imprecatory Psalms have to do with adversaries who defile sacred space? That's a very attenuated interpretation. 

xiii) Let's also keep in mind that the Sermon on the Mount is set in the context of Roman subjugation. In that context, it would be futile at best and counterproductive at worst to violently resist political oppression. Self-defense would bring the full wrath of Rome's military machine down on the entire community. 

xiv) Because Wynne thinks OT ethics has no direct bearing on this issue, he stretches Rom 13:4 to justify a war of intervention. But that has no contextual basis. 

Select bibliography on Reformed theology

Introductory

Paul Helm, Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark 2008)

_____, The Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion (Banner of Truth 1986)

_____, The Callings: The Gospel in the World (Banner of Truth 1987)

–––––, The Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell (Banner of Truth 1989)

A. A. Hodge, Westminster Confession: A Commentary (Banner of Truth 2004)

Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Eerdmans 1995)

John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Eerdmans 1996)

Roger Nicole, Our Sovereign Saviour (Christian Focus 2001)

J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historical Christian Beliefs (Tyndale 2001)

Intermediate

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan 1995)

Paul Helm, The Providence of God (IVP 1994)

Roger Nicole, Standing Forth (Mentor 2001)

J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Crossway 2010)

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (P&R 2004)

Carl Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Ashgate 2007)

Fred Zaspel, ed. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway 2010)

Advanced

William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vols 1-2 (Banner of Truth 1960)

_____, The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Banner of Truth 1979)

John Frame, The Doctrine of God (P&R  2002)

_____, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R 2008)

Paul Helm, Calvin at the Centre (Oxford 2010)

_____, Eternal God: A Study of God without Time (Oxford, 2nd ed. 2011)

_____, Faith with Reason (Oxford 2003)

_____, John Calvin's Ideas (Oxford 2006)

Vern Poythress, Chance and the Sovereignty of God (Crossway 2014)

Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Baker 2008)

_____, Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (IVP 2006)

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R 1997)

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, vols 1-5 (Lexham Press 2014-)

Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan 2007). A few concessions to liberalism. Coverage thins out on the Psalter and the Prophets. 

The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (Baker 1978)

Faith on trial

This post is about the emotional problem of evil rather than the intellectual problem of evil. Many professing Christians haven't thought through the problem of evil.
In one respect, that makes sense. There are many things in life we may or may not need to understand. So our default habit is not to learn about something unless and until it happens to us. That's practical. Often, that's necessary.
There is, however, a high likelihood that a Christian will experience personal tragedy. It is imprudent to wait until tragedy hits close to home before beginning to work through the problem of evil. If you wait that long, you may wait too long.
Many people have a habit of treating evil in abstraction. They know it happens all the time, but they are shocked if it happens to them:

It is at times like these that we need to keep firmly in mind the distinction between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. You and your friend are obviously suffering emotionally from the severe losses that you have each experienced, she of her parents and you of your friend. Nothing has really changed to make the problem of innocent suffering more difficult intellectually. You and she were already aware of innocent persons who died in airline crashes, not to mention those who perished in the tsunami of recent years. Yet these deaths did not cause you or your friend to lose your faith. What has changed is that the problem of evil has now become intensely personal. There is an emotional component to these losses that was not present in the deaths of those other persons.
What this implies is that you need to be taking steps to deal with the emotional problem of evil. Now more than ever you need to maintain your devotional life, to be involved in daily prayer and Bible reading, to participate in meaningful corporate worship, and to fellowship with other Christians and share your burden with them.

(Source)
Having a theodicy can help you cope with tragedy. However, intellectual preparation can only take you so far.
It's useful to see how some Christians grope, flail, struggle, and muddle through the pain, anger, and confusion, when they don't have all the answers. In the end, it's grace and faith that get us through:

Mass surveillance

http://www.propublica.org/article/judge-orders-nypd-to-release-records-on-x-ray-vans#