It's always revealing to see what passes for moral discernment among Arminian epologists. For instance:
A.M. Mallett said...
I noticed that the Triablokes attempted a hatchet job on Dr. Olsen's comments regarding open theism as result of this post. I do not think they grasped the intention or context of Olsen's comments though.
July 3, 2010 12:39 PM
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-liberal-am-i-is-arminianism.html#comment-90405030629232988
Notice that Mallett doesn't lift a finger to actually show that I did a hatchet job on Olsen, or that I failed to grasp the intention of context of his comments on open theism. But then, integrity has never been Mallett's strong suit.
Moving along:
William Watson Birch said...
You can't expect Hays to be fair. Look at his recent attack out of the blue on Dave Armstrong. Was that necessary?
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-liberal-am-i-is-arminianism.html#comment-6606484109468354990
Let's see. I pointed out that some upscale Catholic epologists don't have Armstrong on their blogroll. How is it unfair to judge Armstrong by his peers?
Continuing with Birch:
Plus, Hays is not a careful reader. It was my comment concerning Open Theism, not Olson's. I see how he wants to make the connection, but it's just another one of his Christlike smear campaigns. Oh wait, no, it's not Christlike at all.
Just to set the record straight, Billy did a post in which he denied that Arminians are liberals. And he cited open theism as a paradigm-case of liberalism. He accused Calvinists of pedaling "misinformation" about Arminianism. He said they ought to be "embarrassed." He said Arminians have no more in common with open theism than Calvinism does. And he cited Roger Olson in support of his general contention.
I quoted Birch verbatim. Then I quoted Olson verbatim, in which Olson goes out of his way to defend open theists. In the course of which Olson also says that Arminianism has more in common with open theism than it does with Calvinism.
Birch fails the ink-blot test. When you quote somebody verbatim, as well as quoting somebody else verbatim whom he cited in support of his position, and he then accuses you of an "unChristlike smear campaign," he's simply smearing himself. He's staring into the mirror, then accusing the mirror company of character assassination. Well, all I did was hold up the mirror to his own statements. So what does his reaction tell you about his own character?
N.B. Never turn to Billy Birch for tips on how to be Christlike.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Neopagan Arminians
kangaroodort, on July 3, 2010 at 12:27 am Said:
Likewise, it seems ridiculous to us (Arminians) that Calvinists cannot understand that a gift is still a gift even if it is received freely, and that grace doesn’t have to be irresitible to be grace. This seems to be an obvious redefining of what “grace” means by Calvinists. Good luck finding any support outside of Calvinistic philosophy for the idea that a gift is only gracious if it is given and received irresistibly, or grace is only grace if it cannot be resisted. Bizarre.
So while the Arminian is working with normal word usage and long standing definitions, the Calvinist redefines many such words (grace, sovereignty, freedom, etc.) and then faults the Arminian for not holding to the Calvinists bizarre definitions, even to the point of calling such Arminians “dishonest”. What a shame.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/more-on-the-authorship-of-sin/#comment-4894
1. Unfortunately, Ben doesn’t know the elementary difference between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts.
2. However, if we ignore that blunder for the time being, Ben makes an important point about the crucial difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. For if we apply normal standards to Reformed theism, then God is abnormal.
For instance, some boyfriends, if they give their girlfriend an engagement ring, will take it back if they break up. That’s “normal.”
It’s normal for folks to break their promises. Likewise, it’s normal for folks to be petty, promiscuous, vindictive, shortsighted, backstabbing, and mercurial.
And there are various religions in which the gods are very normal. The gods of the Greek pantheon are very normal. The gods of the Nordic pantheon are very normal. The gods of the Mormon pantheon are very normal.
Clark Pinnock’s theology normalized over the years. He migrated from abnormal Calvinism through Arminianism and open theism, to interfaith dialogue with Mormonism. Can’t get more normal than that!
Ben is welcome to Zeus, but I’ll stick with my abnormal theism.
Likewise, it seems ridiculous to us (Arminians) that Calvinists cannot understand that a gift is still a gift even if it is received freely, and that grace doesn’t have to be irresitible to be grace. This seems to be an obvious redefining of what “grace” means by Calvinists. Good luck finding any support outside of Calvinistic philosophy for the idea that a gift is only gracious if it is given and received irresistibly, or grace is only grace if it cannot be resisted. Bizarre.
So while the Arminian is working with normal word usage and long standing definitions, the Calvinist redefines many such words (grace, sovereignty, freedom, etc.) and then faults the Arminian for not holding to the Calvinists bizarre definitions, even to the point of calling such Arminians “dishonest”. What a shame.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/more-on-the-authorship-of-sin/#comment-4894
1. Unfortunately, Ben doesn’t know the elementary difference between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts.
2. However, if we ignore that blunder for the time being, Ben makes an important point about the crucial difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. For if we apply normal standards to Reformed theism, then God is abnormal.
For instance, some boyfriends, if they give their girlfriend an engagement ring, will take it back if they break up. That’s “normal.”
It’s normal for folks to break their promises. Likewise, it’s normal for folks to be petty, promiscuous, vindictive, shortsighted, backstabbing, and mercurial.
And there are various religions in which the gods are very normal. The gods of the Greek pantheon are very normal. The gods of the Nordic pantheon are very normal. The gods of the Mormon pantheon are very normal.
Clark Pinnock’s theology normalized over the years. He migrated from abnormal Calvinism through Arminianism and open theism, to interfaith dialogue with Mormonism. Can’t get more normal than that!
Ben is welcome to Zeus, but I’ll stick with my abnormal theism.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Whither Enns?
JD Walters and I recently had an exchange over Peter Enns. Now there are different ways of sizing up his position. One way is to judge him by his own statements. However, Enns is also a part of a collaborative effort over at BioLogos. I'm going to quote a few statements by his fellow contributor, Ken Sparks.
Now, it's obvious from what he says that Sparks has no personal investment in the Christian faith. And I appreciate his candor. At least he's not putting on a false front.
But either Enns agrees with Sparks or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then what are we to make of his silence?
Kent Sparks - #19986
I have no interest in preserving Christianity ... I believe because, as I understand it, it makes sense of human experience. But if it turns out that Christianity fails to do that, I’ll simply turn elsewhere.
Kent Sparks - #20019
I am not interested in any theology that makes God out to be the murderer of his himself ...
Kent Sparks - #20041
I do believe that a barbaric view of God appears in Scripture and that it reflects a broken human perspective that naturally arises when we see a troubled world. Things are bad, so God is causing it ... that is the logic.
I am no pacifist. There are instances in which violence is necessary to protect the innocent ... but the idea that God would actually command his people to kill innocent people can’t be right ... Better to be a Unitarian than to believe such a thing.
Kent Sparks - #20182
So I must work with the Bible that we have ... beautiful but broken ... or admit, with all of the skeptics, that the broken world, and broken Bible, are strong evidence that God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care.
I come to Christianity from the outside, so to speak, and have no interest in perpetuting a faith in Christ and Scripture if that entails believing all sorts of things that don’t suit the evidence or experience.
http://biologos.org/blog/after-inerrancy-evangelicals-and-the-bible-in-a-postmodern-age-part-5/
Now, it's obvious from what he says that Sparks has no personal investment in the Christian faith. And I appreciate his candor. At least he's not putting on a false front.
But either Enns agrees with Sparks or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then what are we to make of his silence?
Kent Sparks - #19986
I have no interest in preserving Christianity ... I believe because, as I understand it, it makes sense of human experience. But if it turns out that Christianity fails to do that, I’ll simply turn elsewhere.
Kent Sparks - #20019
I am not interested in any theology that makes God out to be the murderer of his himself ...
Kent Sparks - #20041
I do believe that a barbaric view of God appears in Scripture and that it reflects a broken human perspective that naturally arises when we see a troubled world. Things are bad, so God is causing it ... that is the logic.
I am no pacifist. There are instances in which violence is necessary to protect the innocent ... but the idea that God would actually command his people to kill innocent people can’t be right ... Better to be a Unitarian than to believe such a thing.
Kent Sparks - #20182
So I must work with the Bible that we have ... beautiful but broken ... or admit, with all of the skeptics, that the broken world, and broken Bible, are strong evidence that God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care.
I come to Christianity from the outside, so to speak, and have no interest in perpetuting a faith in Christ and Scripture if that entails believing all sorts of things that don’t suit the evidence or experience.
http://biologos.org/blog/after-inerrancy-evangelicals-and-the-bible-in-a-postmodern-age-part-5/
BioLogos or Diabolus?
Kent Sparks - #19986
I have no interest in preserving Christianity ... I believe because, as I understand it, it makes sense of human experience. But if it turns out that Christianity fails to do that, I’ll simply turn elsewhere.
http://biologos.org/blog/after-inerrancy-evangelicals-and-the-bible-in-a-postmodern-age-part-5/
St Peter
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
(Jn 6:66-68)
I have no interest in preserving Christianity ... I believe because, as I understand it, it makes sense of human experience. But if it turns out that Christianity fails to do that, I’ll simply turn elsewhere.
http://biologos.org/blog/after-inerrancy-evangelicals-and-the-bible-in-a-postmodern-age-part-5/
St Peter
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
(Jn 6:66-68)
Apostasy & Perseverance (An ebook by Steve Hays)
Steve Hays has written an ebook entitled Apostasy & Perseverance <--click to read it--and yes, it's free!
To whet your appetite, here's what's in it!
To whet your appetite, here's what's in it!
I. IntroductionAs you can see, it covers a lot of ground, and is well-worth reading if you are a Calvinist or Arminian.
II. Exegetical Theology
A. Major Motif
B. Locus Classicus
Heb 6 & 10
C. Paradigm Passages
1. Rom 1:18-25
2. Mt 13:1-23
3. 1 Cor 10:13
4. Mt 12:31-32
5. 1 Jn 2:19
6. 1 John 5:16-17
D. Secondary Passages
1. Mt 24:10-12,24
2. Jn 15:1-6
3. Rom 14:15
4. Gal 5:4
5. 1 Tim 4:1-5
6. 2 Pet 2:1,20-21
7. Rev 3:5
8. Rev 22:19
E. Paradigm Cases
1. Lucifer
i. Gen 3:1-5
ii. Isa 14:12-14
iii. Ezk 28:11-19
iv. Lk 10:18-20
v. 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6
vi. Rev 8:10 & 9:1
vii. Rev 12:7-9
2. Adam & Eve
F. Secondary Cases
i. Ahab
ii. Ahaz
iii. Asaph
iv. David
v. Demas
vi. Eli
vii. Hymenaeus
viii. Jehorem
ix. Jeroboam
x. John the Baptist
xi. Judaizers
xii. Judas
xiii. Manasseh
xiv. Peter
xv. Saul
xvi. Simon Magus
xvi. Solomon
III. Philosophical Theology
1. Original Sin
2. Apostasy & Assurance
3. Counterfactual Precautions
IV. Excurses
Excursus 1: Literary Allusions in Heb 6
Excursus 2: Thomas Schreiner
Excursus 3: Luke Timothy Johnson
Excursus 4: Buist Fanning
Excursus 5: Arminianism & Apostasy
Excursus 6: Ophidian Symbolism
Excursus 7: Ophidian Possession
V. Bibliography
Errant Enns
STEVE SAID:
JD WALTERS SAID:
“This is a profoundly uncharitable reading of Enns' post.”
Because I don’t play the patsy for Enns? Sorry, but I don’t think gullibility is either an ethical or theological imperative.
“I hope you're not implying that it's wrong everywhere, always and for everyone to instill doubts on any issue.”
Well, that’s ironic coming on the heels of your accusation about uncharitable interpretations.
What’s the context of my statement? The way in which Enns denies or undermines inerrancy to make room for whatever he can’t believe in the Bible.
“But if Biologos is right about the strength of the evidence for evolution, instilling doubt about the accuracy of the YEC is morally praiseworthy.”
The question at issue is not the accuracy of YEC, but the accuracy of Scripture. Enns openly denies the inerrancy of Scripture. For instance, he admits that Paul taught the historicity of Adam, which Enns regards as false.
“I hope you realize that this is a hopelessly vague, question-begging statement. It's vague because you don't specify what exactly it means to doubt God's word.”
That’s because Enns has a track-record at BioLogos. And not only him. BioLogos is a collaborative effort. Sparks is another contributor who explicitly denies the inerrancy of Scripture.
“Enns deals with Christians who are finding it very hard to reconcile their trust in God's word with the findings of natural science. He is not making them doubt God's Word, he is allowing them to hold onto their trust in it by showing that one can affirm both the scientific account of origins and the authority of the Bible.”
Well, that’s one explanation. Here’s an alternative explanation: What we see here is an exercise in self-justification. Enns wants to rationalize his infidelity, and part of that process involves enlisting others to second his infidelity.
“I'd say he's doing the Church a service.”
Which explains why you are so defensive. It would, however, behoove you to redirect your zeal from defending those who attack the Bible, and attacking those who defend the Bible, to defending the Bible against those who attack it.
“If I was convinced that the only legitimate model of origins for a Christian was the YEC model I would have abandoned my faith a long time ago, because my study of the relevant science forces me to take the evolutionary history of the cosmos seriously.”
i) Once again, the question at issue is not YEC, but inerrancy. It’s not as if the primary contributors to BioLogos are any more sympathetic to OEC, or even ID theory (which is neutral on these permutations). Try to pay attention to the actual state of play over at BioLogos.
ii) You’re the one, not me, who’s hyping the issue of YEC. I didn’t bring that up in my post. Try to use my post as a window, not a mirror. It will do wonders for your vision.
iii) If you’d cast off your Christian faith due to apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, then your faith was pretty cheap to begin with. You undervalue the Gospel, and overvalue science.
Let’s hope your statement is a reflection of youthful impetuosity rather than settled judgment.
“You're not exactly doubtful about your own convictions re: Calvinism, anti-realism in science and the like.”
A non sequitur since I’m not the one who was commending the value of doubt, Enns was. I’m merely responding to him on his own terms. That’s not difficult to grasp, JD. If you weren’t emoting so much, you could see that.
“Why should Enns attempt to cultivate doubts about macroevolution if there's good evidence for it, or at least what he thinks is good evidence?”
i) Why is it better to cultivate doubts about Scripture than to doubts about macroevolution?
ii) And his post affects this pose of mock humility when, in fact, he’s nothing of the kind.
“For Enns the new default is the facticity of macro-evolution, so until he is presented with convincing evidence to the contrary his theological project is to reconcile macroevolution with his understanding of Scripture.”
i) To begin with, I don’t see BioLogos ever make an honest attempt to deal with the other side of the argument. But maybe I missed something.
ii) And what about taking certain things on faith? Is that too much for God to ask of us? Or should we murmur in the wilderness?
“That Enns is trying to deconvert people is ridiculous.”
It’s ridiculous to you because you want to keep your options open.
“He's trying to allow people to hold onto their faith in the face of the challenge of evolution.”
He destroys the village to save the village. Helps them to “hold onto their faith” by undercutting their faith in Scripture.
“Unless of course you think YEC is the only legitimate origins model for Christians, in that case yes he is attempting to deconvert people, and he should.”
Once more, you’re the one who’s obsessing over YEC, not me. That was no part of my post. And that’s hardly the only target over at BioLogos.
“Again, we are obligated to pursue the truth, and I find YEC highly unlikely to be the truth about our origins.”
i) If you assume that pursuing the truth takes you away from Scripture.
ii) And as far as that goes, I don’t think we have an unconditional obligation to pursue the truth. If atheism were true, then we’d have no obligation to pursue the true, for in that event, we’d have no obligations whatsoever. We only have an obligation to pursue the truth on condition that we have obligations. Once you deny the Christian faith, then duty and morality are the first casualties.
“Doubt, according to Enns, is not a gift of God only when it makes a conservative believer question his faith. Rather, it is a gift when it makes any believer question their unreflective faith, whatever that may be.”
Don’t be duped. It’s not a virtue. Enns is consistently and completely one-sided in his criterion of doubt.
Sure, for PR purposes he may like to sound as if this is open-ended, but that’s just a ploy. Transparently so. Compare that with his paper trail.
“Enns is referring to anyone who believes anything about God here.”
He says that for public consumption, to foster the illusion of even-handedness. But in practice he’s quite single-minded.
STEVE SAID:
JD WALTERS SAID:
“No, because you attribute to him base motives that he does not hold.”
i) Both of us are imputing motives to Enns. It’s not as if you (JD) have direct access to his true motives.
ii) Enns is an easily recognizable type. (For the record, so am I.) In every generation we have people like Enns. The players may change, but the play remains the same. In the past, someone like Charles Augustus Briggs played the same role.
iii) I’m also justified in my imputation of motives because the Bible has a fair amount to say about what motivates a man to question God’s word. I apply biblical psychology to the case of Enns.
“He is not trying to get people to abandon their faith, he is trying to get them to nuance it precisely so they may hold onto it. Even if you think his version of faith is untenable and unorthodox, at least acknowledge that his intention is not to destroy faith but to save it. Charity does not mean thinking that people are right, but it does mean rightly construing their intentions.”
You have a rather naïve view of what it takes to make somebody an enemy of the faith. But there’s more than one type. There’s the outsider. The open opponent. Bertrand Russell. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Bart Ehrman. Antony Flew.
But then you have insiders like Bultmann, Schleiermacher, Spong, Fosdick, Cupitt, and D. Z. Phillips. They don’t see themselves as opponents of the faith. To the contrary, they cast themselves as saviors of the faith. They’re trying to “rescue” the Bible from the fundies. Make Christianity palatable to modern man.
Insiders can do more damage than outsiders because, in their self-deluded mission, they actually imagine that they are doing the Christian faith a favor.
“How? Sometimes it may be legitimate to cast doubts on someone's intentions and character despite the appearances. But in light of Enns' long career as a biblical scholar struggling to be true both to his faith and his critical scruples, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.”
Trust is earned, and he has earned my distrust.
“He is not trying to destroy faith, he is not even trying to liberalize it in 19th Century fashion.”
He may wear a chammy overcoat, but the pointy snout and the protruding fangs are a dead giveaway.
“Anyone familiar with his work would realize that.”
Since I’m familiar with his work, that’s a rather conceited statement on your part. Try to use persuasion rather than assertion.
“To say that he denies inerrancy is to assume a particular definition of a contested term.”
Back to my example. On the one hand he admits that Paul thought and taught that Adam was a real person. The first man. The first human being.
On the other hand he believes that this can’t be true. Given what we “know” about the “true” origins of man (a la evolution), that’s not possible.
So something has to give. Guess what?
If you want to say the Bible is “inerrant” even though it inculcates factual falsehoods, then that’s a Pickwickian definition of terms. Who are we fooling?
“But I think it's clear that Enns is not so much interested in having a choir to sing to as he is in creating space for Christian faith to thrive in a world where science has considerable authority (and rightly so, in my opinion, again based on my own study of science).”
And I think it’s clear that he’s trying to create space for his own latitudinarian faith.
“Again, I think it's ridiculous to claim that Enns is attacking the Bible. Dawkins and Hitchens attack the Bible. Ingersoll and Paine attacked the Bible. Enns is not attacking the Bible. But again, your characterization is very vague. What does it mean to attack the Bible?”
Once again you expose your naïveté. For instance, Mary Baker Eddy didn’t consciously intend to attack the Bible or the Christian faith. But her idealistic filter is just as destructive as Porphyry’s frontal attack. You can destroy the Christian faith from within by redefining key terms and concepts, a la Swedenborg.
“I greatly admire the work you, Jason Engwer, Paul Manata and others do in defense of the reliability of the Gospels, etc”
The respect is mutual. But defending Enns is unworthy of your talents.
“And anyone who has read my voluminous posts on Christian CADRE knows how zealous I am in defense of the Bible.”
Which I appreciate. But at the moment you’re taking away with one hand what you give with another.
“But I cannot go against my intellectual honesty in defending an understanding of the Bible and its authority that I regard as untenable.”
I don’t know what that means. Does tenability take the self-understanding of Scripture as its point of reference, or an extraneous reference point like the scientific establishment?
We can only defend the Bible on its own terms. We can’t honestly defend the Bible in a way that runs counter to the self-understanding of Scripture.
“My point in bringing up YEC is that for many Christians it has been a sticking point for their faith, because of their assumption that inerrancy entails YEC, which is in conflict with well established science.”
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. BioLogos never engages the more astute representatives of YEC (e.g. Byl, Snelling, Sarfati, Wise).
“On the contrary, I think it's a cheap faith that settles into a particular understanding of things and from there on is impervious to development.”
i) Now you’re changing the subject. You initially cast the issue in terms of choosing between Christian faith and apostasy. Now you’ve recast the issue in terms of a choice between a monolithic understanding of the faith and a historically progressive understanding of the faith. We could debate the pros and cons of that, but it’s a different issue.
ii) The Bible means whatever it means. We can’t begin with what we’re prepared to believe, then dictate that what the Bible means can only fall within the preset parameters of what we’re prepared to believe. That’s not how we interpret Homer or Dante or Bradbury.
“It is taking it seriously, which you seem reluctant to do, even though you are typing these posts using a computer made possible as a result of advances in physical science.”
That’s philosophically jejune. Technology is quite compatible with varieties of scientific antirealism.
“Again, I suspect you already 'know' what it means to doubt Scripture and wouldn't be open to my urging that Enns only doubts what he regards as an untenable understanding of Scripture.”
i) That’s demonstrably false. It’s a useful ruse for Enns to pretend that this is just a hermeneutical issue. And that’s a nice softening up exercise. But he’s gone beyond that. He takes the position that on the correct understanding of Scripture (i.e. his own understanding), Scripture is simply wrong on issues like the historicity of Adam as the father of the human race.
ii) Unless by “understanding Scripture, you mean, not understanding what Scripture teaches, but understanding the nature of Scripture itself. Yet the two issues are intertwined. To understand what Scripture teaches will include an understanding of what it teaches about itself. By imputing error to the teaching of Scripture, Enns also rejects the self-referential teaching of Scripture as the word of God.
Christianity is a revealed religion. You can’t “nuance” away the revelatory foundation, and still have Christianity. Either God has spoken or he hasn’t.
“Which argument are you referring to? Over Scripture or over macroevolution?”
Their one-sided treatment of comparative mythology. Their habitual caricaturing of ID theory. The fact that they dismiss YEC out of hand rather than debate the most sophisticated exponents of that position. The fact that they simply ignore OEC.
“If the former, Enns has written lots of material on understanding the authority of the Bible on an 'incarnational' model.”
Which D. A. Carson dismantled in an early review.
“I would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I don't trinitarian Christian faith is the only possible ground of duty and morality. It may be the most plausible, but not the only possible one.”
Well, that poses a striking dilemma. I value truth because I’m a Christian. Were I not a Christian, I wouldn’t care. In a godless world, who was right and who was wrong doesn’t make a bit of difference in the long run. In that event, you and I are slabs of meat in the morgue.
I don’t have a fallback option. I’m not hedging my bets. I got all my chips on the Christian jackpot. For me it’s Christianity or bust. All in or all out. There’s nothing in-between.
STEVE SAID:
LAYMAN SAID:
"But are you also saying that it's 'inerrancy or bust'?"
Always nice to hear from you, Layman. You, JD, and BK, are the troika that put the CADRE in the top-tier of Christian apologetic blogs.
i) Since I don't think there's viable alternative to Christianity, there's a sense in which your hypothetical (inerrancy or else) is moot.
I admittedly have a presuppositional commitment to inerrancy:
ii) That dovetails with the self-witness of Scripture regarding verbal inspiration, which entails inerrancy (if you also factor in the Biblical view of God).
iii) As a saved sinner, I have a duty to put my trust in the truthfulness of God's word.
iv) Without the intersubjectival standard and external check of divine revelation, I think there's very little that we can know about the sensible world. So I regard divine revelation is a necessary precondition of human knowledge. As such, empirical evidence can never disprove the Bible.
(Of course, we need a separate argument to address rival revelatory claimants.)
JD WALTERS SAID:
“This is a profoundly uncharitable reading of Enns' post.”
Because I don’t play the patsy for Enns? Sorry, but I don’t think gullibility is either an ethical or theological imperative.
“I hope you're not implying that it's wrong everywhere, always and for everyone to instill doubts on any issue.”
Well, that’s ironic coming on the heels of your accusation about uncharitable interpretations.
What’s the context of my statement? The way in which Enns denies or undermines inerrancy to make room for whatever he can’t believe in the Bible.
“But if Biologos is right about the strength of the evidence for evolution, instilling doubt about the accuracy of the YEC is morally praiseworthy.”
The question at issue is not the accuracy of YEC, but the accuracy of Scripture. Enns openly denies the inerrancy of Scripture. For instance, he admits that Paul taught the historicity of Adam, which Enns regards as false.
“I hope you realize that this is a hopelessly vague, question-begging statement. It's vague because you don't specify what exactly it means to doubt God's word.”
That’s because Enns has a track-record at BioLogos. And not only him. BioLogos is a collaborative effort. Sparks is another contributor who explicitly denies the inerrancy of Scripture.
“Enns deals with Christians who are finding it very hard to reconcile their trust in God's word with the findings of natural science. He is not making them doubt God's Word, he is allowing them to hold onto their trust in it by showing that one can affirm both the scientific account of origins and the authority of the Bible.”
Well, that’s one explanation. Here’s an alternative explanation: What we see here is an exercise in self-justification. Enns wants to rationalize his infidelity, and part of that process involves enlisting others to second his infidelity.
“I'd say he's doing the Church a service.”
Which explains why you are so defensive. It would, however, behoove you to redirect your zeal from defending those who attack the Bible, and attacking those who defend the Bible, to defending the Bible against those who attack it.
“If I was convinced that the only legitimate model of origins for a Christian was the YEC model I would have abandoned my faith a long time ago, because my study of the relevant science forces me to take the evolutionary history of the cosmos seriously.”
i) Once again, the question at issue is not YEC, but inerrancy. It’s not as if the primary contributors to BioLogos are any more sympathetic to OEC, or even ID theory (which is neutral on these permutations). Try to pay attention to the actual state of play over at BioLogos.
ii) You’re the one, not me, who’s hyping the issue of YEC. I didn’t bring that up in my post. Try to use my post as a window, not a mirror. It will do wonders for your vision.
iii) If you’d cast off your Christian faith due to apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, then your faith was pretty cheap to begin with. You undervalue the Gospel, and overvalue science.
Let’s hope your statement is a reflection of youthful impetuosity rather than settled judgment.
“You're not exactly doubtful about your own convictions re: Calvinism, anti-realism in science and the like.”
A non sequitur since I’m not the one who was commending the value of doubt, Enns was. I’m merely responding to him on his own terms. That’s not difficult to grasp, JD. If you weren’t emoting so much, you could see that.
“Why should Enns attempt to cultivate doubts about macroevolution if there's good evidence for it, or at least what he thinks is good evidence?”
i) Why is it better to cultivate doubts about Scripture than to doubts about macroevolution?
ii) And his post affects this pose of mock humility when, in fact, he’s nothing of the kind.
“For Enns the new default is the facticity of macro-evolution, so until he is presented with convincing evidence to the contrary his theological project is to reconcile macroevolution with his understanding of Scripture.”
i) To begin with, I don’t see BioLogos ever make an honest attempt to deal with the other side of the argument. But maybe I missed something.
ii) And what about taking certain things on faith? Is that too much for God to ask of us? Or should we murmur in the wilderness?
“That Enns is trying to deconvert people is ridiculous.”
It’s ridiculous to you because you want to keep your options open.
“He's trying to allow people to hold onto their faith in the face of the challenge of evolution.”
He destroys the village to save the village. Helps them to “hold onto their faith” by undercutting their faith in Scripture.
“Unless of course you think YEC is the only legitimate origins model for Christians, in that case yes he is attempting to deconvert people, and he should.”
Once more, you’re the one who’s obsessing over YEC, not me. That was no part of my post. And that’s hardly the only target over at BioLogos.
“Again, we are obligated to pursue the truth, and I find YEC highly unlikely to be the truth about our origins.”
i) If you assume that pursuing the truth takes you away from Scripture.
ii) And as far as that goes, I don’t think we have an unconditional obligation to pursue the truth. If atheism were true, then we’d have no obligation to pursue the true, for in that event, we’d have no obligations whatsoever. We only have an obligation to pursue the truth on condition that we have obligations. Once you deny the Christian faith, then duty and morality are the first casualties.
“Doubt, according to Enns, is not a gift of God only when it makes a conservative believer question his faith. Rather, it is a gift when it makes any believer question their unreflective faith, whatever that may be.”
Don’t be duped. It’s not a virtue. Enns is consistently and completely one-sided in his criterion of doubt.
Sure, for PR purposes he may like to sound as if this is open-ended, but that’s just a ploy. Transparently so. Compare that with his paper trail.
“Enns is referring to anyone who believes anything about God here.”
He says that for public consumption, to foster the illusion of even-handedness. But in practice he’s quite single-minded.
STEVE SAID:
JD WALTERS SAID:
“No, because you attribute to him base motives that he does not hold.”
i) Both of us are imputing motives to Enns. It’s not as if you (JD) have direct access to his true motives.
ii) Enns is an easily recognizable type. (For the record, so am I.) In every generation we have people like Enns. The players may change, but the play remains the same. In the past, someone like Charles Augustus Briggs played the same role.
iii) I’m also justified in my imputation of motives because the Bible has a fair amount to say about what motivates a man to question God’s word. I apply biblical psychology to the case of Enns.
“He is not trying to get people to abandon their faith, he is trying to get them to nuance it precisely so they may hold onto it. Even if you think his version of faith is untenable and unorthodox, at least acknowledge that his intention is not to destroy faith but to save it. Charity does not mean thinking that people are right, but it does mean rightly construing their intentions.”
You have a rather naïve view of what it takes to make somebody an enemy of the faith. But there’s more than one type. There’s the outsider. The open opponent. Bertrand Russell. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Bart Ehrman. Antony Flew.
But then you have insiders like Bultmann, Schleiermacher, Spong, Fosdick, Cupitt, and D. Z. Phillips. They don’t see themselves as opponents of the faith. To the contrary, they cast themselves as saviors of the faith. They’re trying to “rescue” the Bible from the fundies. Make Christianity palatable to modern man.
Insiders can do more damage than outsiders because, in their self-deluded mission, they actually imagine that they are doing the Christian faith a favor.
“How? Sometimes it may be legitimate to cast doubts on someone's intentions and character despite the appearances. But in light of Enns' long career as a biblical scholar struggling to be true both to his faith and his critical scruples, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.”
Trust is earned, and he has earned my distrust.
“He is not trying to destroy faith, he is not even trying to liberalize it in 19th Century fashion.”
He may wear a chammy overcoat, but the pointy snout and the protruding fangs are a dead giveaway.
“Anyone familiar with his work would realize that.”
Since I’m familiar with his work, that’s a rather conceited statement on your part. Try to use persuasion rather than assertion.
“To say that he denies inerrancy is to assume a particular definition of a contested term.”
Back to my example. On the one hand he admits that Paul thought and taught that Adam was a real person. The first man. The first human being.
On the other hand he believes that this can’t be true. Given what we “know” about the “true” origins of man (a la evolution), that’s not possible.
So something has to give. Guess what?
If you want to say the Bible is “inerrant” even though it inculcates factual falsehoods, then that’s a Pickwickian definition of terms. Who are we fooling?
“But I think it's clear that Enns is not so much interested in having a choir to sing to as he is in creating space for Christian faith to thrive in a world where science has considerable authority (and rightly so, in my opinion, again based on my own study of science).”
And I think it’s clear that he’s trying to create space for his own latitudinarian faith.
“Again, I think it's ridiculous to claim that Enns is attacking the Bible. Dawkins and Hitchens attack the Bible. Ingersoll and Paine attacked the Bible. Enns is not attacking the Bible. But again, your characterization is very vague. What does it mean to attack the Bible?”
Once again you expose your naïveté. For instance, Mary Baker Eddy didn’t consciously intend to attack the Bible or the Christian faith. But her idealistic filter is just as destructive as Porphyry’s frontal attack. You can destroy the Christian faith from within by redefining key terms and concepts, a la Swedenborg.
“I greatly admire the work you, Jason Engwer, Paul Manata and others do in defense of the reliability of the Gospels, etc”
The respect is mutual. But defending Enns is unworthy of your talents.
“And anyone who has read my voluminous posts on Christian CADRE knows how zealous I am in defense of the Bible.”
Which I appreciate. But at the moment you’re taking away with one hand what you give with another.
“But I cannot go against my intellectual honesty in defending an understanding of the Bible and its authority that I regard as untenable.”
I don’t know what that means. Does tenability take the self-understanding of Scripture as its point of reference, or an extraneous reference point like the scientific establishment?
We can only defend the Bible on its own terms. We can’t honestly defend the Bible in a way that runs counter to the self-understanding of Scripture.
“My point in bringing up YEC is that for many Christians it has been a sticking point for their faith, because of their assumption that inerrancy entails YEC, which is in conflict with well established science.”
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. BioLogos never engages the more astute representatives of YEC (e.g. Byl, Snelling, Sarfati, Wise).
“On the contrary, I think it's a cheap faith that settles into a particular understanding of things and from there on is impervious to development.”
i) Now you’re changing the subject. You initially cast the issue in terms of choosing between Christian faith and apostasy. Now you’ve recast the issue in terms of a choice between a monolithic understanding of the faith and a historically progressive understanding of the faith. We could debate the pros and cons of that, but it’s a different issue.
ii) The Bible means whatever it means. We can’t begin with what we’re prepared to believe, then dictate that what the Bible means can only fall within the preset parameters of what we’re prepared to believe. That’s not how we interpret Homer or Dante or Bradbury.
“It is taking it seriously, which you seem reluctant to do, even though you are typing these posts using a computer made possible as a result of advances in physical science.”
That’s philosophically jejune. Technology is quite compatible with varieties of scientific antirealism.
“Again, I suspect you already 'know' what it means to doubt Scripture and wouldn't be open to my urging that Enns only doubts what he regards as an untenable understanding of Scripture.”
i) That’s demonstrably false. It’s a useful ruse for Enns to pretend that this is just a hermeneutical issue. And that’s a nice softening up exercise. But he’s gone beyond that. He takes the position that on the correct understanding of Scripture (i.e. his own understanding), Scripture is simply wrong on issues like the historicity of Adam as the father of the human race.
ii) Unless by “understanding Scripture, you mean, not understanding what Scripture teaches, but understanding the nature of Scripture itself. Yet the two issues are intertwined. To understand what Scripture teaches will include an understanding of what it teaches about itself. By imputing error to the teaching of Scripture, Enns also rejects the self-referential teaching of Scripture as the word of God.
Christianity is a revealed religion. You can’t “nuance” away the revelatory foundation, and still have Christianity. Either God has spoken or he hasn’t.
“Which argument are you referring to? Over Scripture or over macroevolution?”
Their one-sided treatment of comparative mythology. Their habitual caricaturing of ID theory. The fact that they dismiss YEC out of hand rather than debate the most sophisticated exponents of that position. The fact that they simply ignore OEC.
“If the former, Enns has written lots of material on understanding the authority of the Bible on an 'incarnational' model.”
Which D. A. Carson dismantled in an early review.
“I would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I don't trinitarian Christian faith is the only possible ground of duty and morality. It may be the most plausible, but not the only possible one.”
Well, that poses a striking dilemma. I value truth because I’m a Christian. Were I not a Christian, I wouldn’t care. In a godless world, who was right and who was wrong doesn’t make a bit of difference in the long run. In that event, you and I are slabs of meat in the morgue.
I don’t have a fallback option. I’m not hedging my bets. I got all my chips on the Christian jackpot. For me it’s Christianity or bust. All in or all out. There’s nothing in-between.
STEVE SAID:
LAYMAN SAID:
"But are you also saying that it's 'inerrancy or bust'?"
Always nice to hear from you, Layman. You, JD, and BK, are the troika that put the CADRE in the top-tier of Christian apologetic blogs.
i) Since I don't think there's viable alternative to Christianity, there's a sense in which your hypothetical (inerrancy or else) is moot.
I admittedly have a presuppositional commitment to inerrancy:
ii) That dovetails with the self-witness of Scripture regarding verbal inspiration, which entails inerrancy (if you also factor in the Biblical view of God).
iii) As a saved sinner, I have a duty to put my trust in the truthfulness of God's word.
iv) Without the intersubjectival standard and external check of divine revelation, I think there's very little that we can know about the sensible world. So I regard divine revelation is a necessary precondition of human knowledge. As such, empirical evidence can never disprove the Bible.
(Of course, we need a separate argument to address rival revelatory claimants.)
Resources on Messianic prophecy
T. D. Alexander, The Servant King: The Bible's Portrait of the Messiah (Regent College Publishing, 2003)
G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2007)
Iain M. Duguid, Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham (P & R Publishing, 1999)
Tremper Longman, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship (P & R Publishing, 2001)
J. Alec Motyer, Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ (Kregel Academic & Professional; 1st ed., 2004)
Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (P & R Publishing, 1995)
O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (P & R Publishing, 2008)
Michael Rydelnik’s The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (B& H 2010)
John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (Intervarsity Press, 2009)
G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2007)
Iain M. Duguid, Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham (P & R Publishing, 1999)
Tremper Longman, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship (P & R Publishing, 2001)
J. Alec Motyer, Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ (Kregel Academic & Professional; 1st ed., 2004)
Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (P & R Publishing, 1995)
O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (P & R Publishing, 2008)
Michael Rydelnik’s The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (B& H 2010)
John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (Intervarsity Press, 2009)
Monday, July 05, 2010
John MacArthur "Jumping"
This is dedicated to my fellow elder, a man who appreciates John MacArthur's ministry, but doesn't care much for "Holy Hip Hop." Enjoy.
"JUMPING" - John MacArthur Rap from Nathan W. Bingham on Vimeo.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Into the Wild
I recently saw the film Into the Wild. It’s an adaptation of a “true story.”
Part of the movie’s magnetism lies in the perennial appeal of a road movie. This taps into the profound and universal metaphor of life as a journey through time and space. OT history and typology plays on this metaphor. Adam and Eve banished from Eden. The nomadic life of the patriarchs. Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, on its way to the Promised Land. Israel’s exile and return.
This also plays out in the life of Christ. His boyhood as a fugitive. His public ministry as a journey to the Cross. At a cosmic level, his coming to earth, return to heaven, and second coming.
This also represents the pilgrim motif in NT theology (Acts 7; Heb 11). That’s why we call the Christian life a “walk” of faith. Paul “ran the race.” The dialectic of exile and homecoming.
I suspect that God has programmed this metaphor into the psyche of the human race. A subliminal “homing” instinct.
The genre allows us to meet a cross-section of humanity as well as a cross-section of geography. So the film benefits from a powerful collusion of intrinsically compelling features. An early example of this genre was the TV series Route 66.
The film also triggers a related motif–the loner, the drifter.
Up to a point it’s only natural for many young men to have an adventurous streak. A hankering to see the world. Revel in their boundless energy and freedom of movement. Test themselves against nature.
The nicest scene in the movie is watching the protagonist (Christopher McCandless) paddle down the Colorado River in his kayak, in the glowing waters, surrounded by canyons. The film also profits from some good folk music.
In one of his encounters he befriends an aging hippie couple. To some extent they represent an older version of himself. Rebellious. Living on the edges of civilization.
However, they also reflect the disillusionment with their chosen lifestyle. While it may be fun to be a twenty-something hippie, it’s not so fun to be an over-the-hill hippie.
He also befriends a widowed veteran. This sets up a classic interplay between youth and age. The young are risk-takers. Living for the day. At their age they can blow one opportunity, while having another opportunity just around the corner. Time is on their side.
By contrast, the old man has the far-sighted wisdom of painful hindsight. He is cautious. Sedentary. And lonely.
The character is played by Hal Holbrook in the twilight of his career. A seasoned actor who infuses ever word and gesture with a lifetime of personal and professional experience.
McCandless finally reaches his destination–the Alaskan bush–after crossing the Teklanika River during the dry season. For the first few weeks he’s ecstatic. Living out his dream. Awed by the rugged beauty and solitude of the Alaskan wilderness, as well as his unfettered freedom.
However, pride is his undoing. He prides himself on his ability to wing it. To coast through life. Live by his wits. Take each day as it comes. Improvise on the spot.
Yet he’s survived up until now on the kindness of strangers. He’s not as independent as he imagines. But in the Alaskan bush, there are no kindly strangers to rush to his aid. In large part we create civilization to insulate us from the dangers of the natural world. But in the wilderness, there is no buffer zone. A single misstep may be fatal.
McCandless sought out nature as a sphere of absolute freedom. But far from being free, he existed at the whim of an indifferent and inhospitable environment. No reprieve. A land of law, not gospel.
If the Colorado River epitomized his freedom, then the Teklanika River epitomized his captivity. The now-swollen river barred his exit. He died of starvation–alone and lonely.
The fate of McCandless is a parable of the unbeliever. It’s easy to live off the fat of the land in the spring and summer months. But when the winter of life overtakes you, unprepared, it is too late to stock up and hunker down.
Like McCandless, the unbeliever is rootless. Homeless. Fatherless. A desert saint without a calling. He treks into the wilderness, never to return.
“Too late!” The saddest words in the lexicon. Don’t wait until midnight to check your provisions. Be a wise virgin, not a foolish virgin.
Part of the movie’s magnetism lies in the perennial appeal of a road movie. This taps into the profound and universal metaphor of life as a journey through time and space. OT history and typology plays on this metaphor. Adam and Eve banished from Eden. The nomadic life of the patriarchs. Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, on its way to the Promised Land. Israel’s exile and return.
This also plays out in the life of Christ. His boyhood as a fugitive. His public ministry as a journey to the Cross. At a cosmic level, his coming to earth, return to heaven, and second coming.
This also represents the pilgrim motif in NT theology (Acts 7; Heb 11). That’s why we call the Christian life a “walk” of faith. Paul “ran the race.” The dialectic of exile and homecoming.
I suspect that God has programmed this metaphor into the psyche of the human race. A subliminal “homing” instinct.
The genre allows us to meet a cross-section of humanity as well as a cross-section of geography. So the film benefits from a powerful collusion of intrinsically compelling features. An early example of this genre was the TV series Route 66.
The film also triggers a related motif–the loner, the drifter.
Up to a point it’s only natural for many young men to have an adventurous streak. A hankering to see the world. Revel in their boundless energy and freedom of movement. Test themselves against nature.
The nicest scene in the movie is watching the protagonist (Christopher McCandless) paddle down the Colorado River in his kayak, in the glowing waters, surrounded by canyons. The film also profits from some good folk music.
In one of his encounters he befriends an aging hippie couple. To some extent they represent an older version of himself. Rebellious. Living on the edges of civilization.
However, they also reflect the disillusionment with their chosen lifestyle. While it may be fun to be a twenty-something hippie, it’s not so fun to be an over-the-hill hippie.
He also befriends a widowed veteran. This sets up a classic interplay between youth and age. The young are risk-takers. Living for the day. At their age they can blow one opportunity, while having another opportunity just around the corner. Time is on their side.
By contrast, the old man has the far-sighted wisdom of painful hindsight. He is cautious. Sedentary. And lonely.
The character is played by Hal Holbrook in the twilight of his career. A seasoned actor who infuses ever word and gesture with a lifetime of personal and professional experience.
McCandless finally reaches his destination–the Alaskan bush–after crossing the Teklanika River during the dry season. For the first few weeks he’s ecstatic. Living out his dream. Awed by the rugged beauty and solitude of the Alaskan wilderness, as well as his unfettered freedom.
However, pride is his undoing. He prides himself on his ability to wing it. To coast through life. Live by his wits. Take each day as it comes. Improvise on the spot.
Yet he’s survived up until now on the kindness of strangers. He’s not as independent as he imagines. But in the Alaskan bush, there are no kindly strangers to rush to his aid. In large part we create civilization to insulate us from the dangers of the natural world. But in the wilderness, there is no buffer zone. A single misstep may be fatal.
McCandless sought out nature as a sphere of absolute freedom. But far from being free, he existed at the whim of an indifferent and inhospitable environment. No reprieve. A land of law, not gospel.
If the Colorado River epitomized his freedom, then the Teklanika River epitomized his captivity. The now-swollen river barred his exit. He died of starvation–alone and lonely.
The fate of McCandless is a parable of the unbeliever. It’s easy to live off the fat of the land in the spring and summer months. But when the winter of life overtakes you, unprepared, it is too late to stock up and hunker down.
Like McCandless, the unbeliever is rootless. Homeless. Fatherless. A desert saint without a calling. He treks into the wilderness, never to return.
“Too late!” The saddest words in the lexicon. Don’t wait until midnight to check your provisions. Be a wise virgin, not a foolish virgin.
More from the Religion of Pieces
While our dear brothers over at Answering Muslims continue to press forward with litigation after being arrested in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S.A., for handing out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk, it looks like Muslims are doing a successful job of duping the Brits into allowing them to engage in angry protests, and the aggressive, threatening speech, and violence that you see below; all of course under the banner of "free speech".
It looks like "sweet sharia" isn't too far away for people in the U.K., should the government continue to allow for such nonsense in the name of pluralism. Worse yet, private citizens cannot own firearms and British police don't carry them on their person. In light of that fact, one wonders what means of protection many people will have when blood begins to run in the streets of Great Britain. As the foundations of cultural Christianity have long since crumbled in the U.K. and secularism has left a gaping void in English culture, it is high time we pay attention. Dear Christians, take a good look at the video below and remind yourself that this is the judgment of God on a nation that ditched Biblical truth for secular ideals (Rom. 1:18ff). After all, when the void of secularism has ravaged people of any desire to live for anything but themselves and those same people have aborted their own children multiple times, the Qu'ranic Muslims will be more than happy to take their place with 4-6 children per family combined with a robust religious and community tradition that shows secularism up for the folly that it is.
Here's another video wherein Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim, clearly states that Islamic teachings inform his pro-jihad message. Listen to him explain in his own words that Islam is not a "religion of peace", but rather a religion of "pieces" that glories in jihad. We would do well to do as President Reagan did, and study those who want our blood. We must know what these folks believe, why the believe it, what they plan to do about it, how we as Christians can minister the gospel to them, and how we must protect ourselves from them should that ever be necessary.
HT: Answering Muslims
It looks like "sweet sharia" isn't too far away for people in the U.K., should the government continue to allow for such nonsense in the name of pluralism. Worse yet, private citizens cannot own firearms and British police don't carry them on their person. In light of that fact, one wonders what means of protection many people will have when blood begins to run in the streets of Great Britain. As the foundations of cultural Christianity have long since crumbled in the U.K. and secularism has left a gaping void in English culture, it is high time we pay attention. Dear Christians, take a good look at the video below and remind yourself that this is the judgment of God on a nation that ditched Biblical truth for secular ideals (Rom. 1:18ff). After all, when the void of secularism has ravaged people of any desire to live for anything but themselves and those same people have aborted their own children multiple times, the Qu'ranic Muslims will be more than happy to take their place with 4-6 children per family combined with a robust religious and community tradition that shows secularism up for the folly that it is.
Here's another video wherein Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim, clearly states that Islamic teachings inform his pro-jihad message. Listen to him explain in his own words that Islam is not a "religion of peace", but rather a religion of "pieces" that glories in jihad. We would do well to do as President Reagan did, and study those who want our blood. We must know what these folks believe, why the believe it, what they plan to do about it, how we as Christians can minister the gospel to them, and how we must protect ourselves from them should that ever be necessary.
HT: Answering Muslims
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Religious violence
UFC President Dana White is the interview subject in the September issue of Playboy, and in his typically profane manner, White hits on some hot topics both in and, especially, out of the Octagon.
On religion, White reveals that he's an atheist: "I don't believe in God, the devil, ghosts or any of that s---," White says. "But I'm still fascinated by religion -- how violent and crazy it is. That stuff sticks with you."
http://www.mmafighting.com/2008/08/14/dana-white-tells-playboy-about-his-atheism-steroid-use-and-love/
Yes, one can understand how a guy with his pacifistic proclivities might find the violent aspect of organized religion disturbing.
On religion, White reveals that he's an atheist: "I don't believe in God, the devil, ghosts or any of that s---," White says. "But I'm still fascinated by religion -- how violent and crazy it is. That stuff sticks with you."
http://www.mmafighting.com/2008/08/14/dana-white-tells-playboy-about-his-atheism-steroid-use-and-love/
Yes, one can understand how a guy with his pacifistic proclivities might find the violent aspect of organized religion disturbing.
The pretense of doubt
Peter Enns did a recent post on the “Benefit of Doubt.” Much of what he says is true, considered in isolation. However, his post is profoundly deceptive.
1. There’s a fundamental difference between having doubts and fostering doubts. Peter Enns and his cohorts at Biologos aren’t merely sympathizing with struggling believers. No. Enns and his cohorts are doing their best to instill doubt. Make the faithful doubt God's word. That’s a subversive, diabolical activity.
2. There is also the pungent aroma of hypocrisy emanating from his post. Enns lacks a capacity for self-criticism. He’s not somebody who projects self-doubt. He’s not attempting to cultivate doubts about macroevolution, &c.
Like militant apostates generally, he exudes tremendous self-confidence as he labors to win deconverts to his cause. For Enns, doubt is only a “gift of God” when it makes a conservative believer question his faith.
3. Then there’s this bizarre statement: “Read Ecclesiastes where Qoheleth’s entire universe of meaning is crumbling before him and he shakes his fist at God himself.”
I don’t see Qohelet “shaking his first at God.” To the contrary, I see Qohelet resigned to the inscrutable providence for God. For Qohelet, this world is not enough. There must be something more. This can’t be the whole story.
It’s as if we were dropped into the middle of the story–like waking up in a strange city.
1. There’s a fundamental difference between having doubts and fostering doubts. Peter Enns and his cohorts at Biologos aren’t merely sympathizing with struggling believers. No. Enns and his cohorts are doing their best to instill doubt. Make the faithful doubt God's word. That’s a subversive, diabolical activity.
2. There is also the pungent aroma of hypocrisy emanating from his post. Enns lacks a capacity for self-criticism. He’s not somebody who projects self-doubt. He’s not attempting to cultivate doubts about macroevolution, &c.
Like militant apostates generally, he exudes tremendous self-confidence as he labors to win deconverts to his cause. For Enns, doubt is only a “gift of God” when it makes a conservative believer question his faith.
3. Then there’s this bizarre statement: “Read Ecclesiastes where Qoheleth’s entire universe of meaning is crumbling before him and he shakes his fist at God himself.”
I don’t see Qohelet “shaking his first at God.” To the contrary, I see Qohelet resigned to the inscrutable providence for God. For Qohelet, this world is not enough. There must be something more. This can’t be the whole story.
It’s as if we were dropped into the middle of the story–like waking up in a strange city.
Psalm 8
When I consider all your work, the trim
Consumption fusion makes of hydrogen
In constellations without number, then
Reflect on orbits scattered at your whim,
Each mathematically sure and prim,
Or think of suns and moons not seen by men,
Of space in light-years raised to powers of ten,
Then what is man, that you remember him?
And not just man, but every hair upon
His head, each sitting down, each rising up,
Each turning-point and how it's lost or won,
Each tear, each boisterous laugh, each bitter cup.
That I, a speck of cosmic dust, should be
Both known and loved by you, transfixes me.
(D.A. Carson; PDF)
Consumption fusion makes of hydrogen
In constellations without number, then
Reflect on orbits scattered at your whim,
Each mathematically sure and prim,
Or think of suns and moons not seen by men,
Of space in light-years raised to powers of ten,
Then what is man, that you remember him?
And not just man, but every hair upon
His head, each sitting down, each rising up,
Each turning-point and how it's lost or won,
Each tear, each boisterous laugh, each bitter cup.
That I, a speck of cosmic dust, should be
Both known and loved by you, transfixes me.
(D.A. Carson; PDF)
Friday, July 02, 2010
Odd man out
We’ve all heard the story, repeated with many variations, of the working class dad who holds down two or three jobs to put his son through college. Then, when his boy makes it into the Ivy Leagues, his white-collar son is embarrassed to be in the company of his blue-collar dad. The son may come home during school break, but he doesn’t like it when the old man shows up unannounced at the door of his dorm room.
Here the son successfully palmed himself off as “somebody,” only to have to introduce his old man, with his calloused mitts and uncouth speech, to his preppie roommates or girlfriend from Exeter.
I can’t help noticing that some of the upscale Catholic blogs don’t seem to list him on their blogroll. Blogs like Canterbury Tales, Called to Communion, Principium Unitatis, Return to Rome, and Alexander Pruss’s Blog.
Here dear old Dave has been working the Hoot Owl shift in the coalmines all these years with his pioneering “Apostolate,” only to have the upcoming generation of younger, classier bloggers show him the service entrance when he impertinently turns up at the grand entrance.
Poor old Dave. He’s tried so hard to run a respectable establishment, but he never made the cut.
Here the son successfully palmed himself off as “somebody,” only to have to introduce his old man, with his calloused mitts and uncouth speech, to his preppie roommates or girlfriend from Exeter.
I can’t help noticing that some of the upscale Catholic blogs don’t seem to list him on their blogroll. Blogs like Canterbury Tales, Called to Communion, Principium Unitatis, Return to Rome, and Alexander Pruss’s Blog.
Here dear old Dave has been working the Hoot Owl shift in the coalmines all these years with his pioneering “Apostolate,” only to have the upcoming generation of younger, classier bloggers show him the service entrance when he impertinently turns up at the grand entrance.
Poor old Dave. He’s tried so hard to run a respectable establishment, but he never made the cut.
Dying to die for
I read Roger Ebert pan the latest installment in the Twilight franchise. I saw the first, but between terrible trailers and scathing reviews, I’ve kept as great a distance as possible in this media-saturated culture. On a related note, I’ve also read a few reviews which pan its TV cousin–the Vampire Diaries.
All this stuff is clearly and purely chick-a-delic fare. Which raises a question. Women frequently complain that pornography ruins men for real women. And that’s apparently true in a number of cases, although I don’t know the percentages.
But I wonder if the same holds true in reverse: is vampire chic pornography for women? Does it ruin women (or adolescent girls) for real men?
If that’s what they’re looking for in the guy-next-door, then they’re not going to find it–unless, of course, the guy-next-door is a charming serial killer.
All this stuff is clearly and purely chick-a-delic fare. Which raises a question. Women frequently complain that pornography ruins men for real women. And that’s apparently true in a number of cases, although I don’t know the percentages.
But I wonder if the same holds true in reverse: is vampire chic pornography for women? Does it ruin women (or adolescent girls) for real men?
If that’s what they’re looking for in the guy-next-door, then they’re not going to find it–unless, of course, the guy-next-door is a charming serial killer.
Why didn't the NT Writers Mention . . . .?
Re-posting part of a blog post by Barry Wallace:
***************************
The first was a reader giving what I think he considered to be an example of that kind of so-called internal evidence against Mark’s authorship. It went something like this:
If, as most scholars believe, Mark got his information from Peter, why doesn’t Mark mention that Peter walked on water (Mark 6:45-52), as Matthew does in his description of the same incident (Matt 14:23-33)? The implication is that Mark’s failure to mention Peter walking on the water–when everyone readily acknowledges that Mark got his information from Peter–should be considered evidence that Mark didn’t write the gospel.
That sounds plausible enough.
However, a follow-up comment by another reader pointed out “just how weak most arguments from silence are in historical work.” He continued with a couple of cogent examples:
http://barrywallace.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/arguments-from-silence/
****************************
***************************
The first was a reader giving what I think he considered to be an example of that kind of so-called internal evidence against Mark’s authorship. It went something like this:
If, as most scholars believe, Mark got his information from Peter, why doesn’t Mark mention that Peter walked on water (Mark 6:45-52), as Matthew does in his description of the same incident (Matt 14:23-33)? The implication is that Mark’s failure to mention Peter walking on the water–when everyone readily acknowledges that Mark got his information from Peter–should be considered evidence that Mark didn’t write the gospel.
That sounds plausible enough.
However, a follow-up comment by another reader pointed out “just how weak most arguments from silence are in historical work.” He continued with a couple of cogent examples:
Can you imagine an adventurer writing a detailed travel diary of his trip straight across China in the late 13th century and not mentioning the Great Wall? or printed books? or tea? or footbinding? How about a Civil War general publishing two volumes of memoires [sic] with day-by-day notes about the events of those tumultuous years and somehow managing to leave out the Emancipation Proclamation? Yet Marco Polo did the former, and Ulysses Grant did the latter. The simple fact is that there are many reasons that authors both ancient and modern leave out things that we, with the perspective of hindsight, cannot imagine ourselves leaving out. Our priorities are often not the same as their priorities, and our incredulity at their omissions is a poor test of the authenticity and authorship of almost any historical work — certainly of the gospels.
http://barrywallace.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/arguments-from-silence/
****************************
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Arminian liberals
Billy Birch
I started this blog more than three years ago in an effort to correct the misinformation promoted by Calvinists regarding Arminius's theology... Arminian scholar Roger E. Olson, complaining against the counterfactual statements of Calvinists such as Kim Riddlebarger, writes: "Typical is the claim by Kim Riddlebarger: "Arminianism is not only a departure from historic orthodoxy, but [also] a serious departure from the evangel itself." For centuries both Reformed and Lutheran theologians identified Arminianism with Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, humanism or liberal theology"...Actually, each of those charges are baseless. Any person who even casually reads Arminius or the Remonstrants will be able to see that Arminianism has as much in common with Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, humanism or liberal theology (and also Open Theism) as does Calvinism! Those who confess such things demonstrate (to their embarrassment) that they have never read Arminius or the Remonstrants...Why some Calvinists will not allow me or other Arminians to be called conservative (or sometimes Protestant, or in the Reformed tradition) is because of the theological confines which they have constructed, defining and at times redefining terms just so that anyone who does not abide by said definition(s) cannot be included. For example, Olson writes...
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-liberal-am-i-is-arminianism.html
Roger Olson
As a classical Arminian, I find much more common ground between my theology and Sanders's than between mine and Helm's or Ware's. And I agree with 19C Arminian theologian John Miley who said that dynamic omniscience (John's term for open theism's view of God's foreknowledge) would not undermine any vital Arminian doctrine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I cannot see how it undermines any Christian doctrine. In my opinion, the furor over open theism among conservative evangelical theologians has been over the top; it borders on hysterical, especially since no crucial doctrine of the Christian faith is denied or undermined by it...Open theism would be a heresy if it blatantly contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture or if it presented a doctrine that absolutely contradicted the gospel. I judge that neither is the case. I find problems in its interpretation of Scripture while admitting that it has much scriptural support. I know of no idea intrinsic to the gospel that it denies. I welcome John's version of open theism (as well as those of Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd) into the Christian theological conversation especially as it is being presented humbly and as a theologoumenon–a hypothesis to be tested and not a new dogma to be adopted by everyone willy-nilly," Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views, 248-51.
I started this blog more than three years ago in an effort to correct the misinformation promoted by Calvinists regarding Arminius's theology... Arminian scholar Roger E. Olson, complaining against the counterfactual statements of Calvinists such as Kim Riddlebarger, writes: "Typical is the claim by Kim Riddlebarger: "Arminianism is not only a departure from historic orthodoxy, but [also] a serious departure from the evangel itself." For centuries both Reformed and Lutheran theologians identified Arminianism with Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, humanism or liberal theology"...Actually, each of those charges are baseless. Any person who even casually reads Arminius or the Remonstrants will be able to see that Arminianism has as much in common with Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, humanism or liberal theology (and also Open Theism) as does Calvinism! Those who confess such things demonstrate (to their embarrassment) that they have never read Arminius or the Remonstrants...Why some Calvinists will not allow me or other Arminians to be called conservative (or sometimes Protestant, or in the Reformed tradition) is because of the theological confines which they have constructed, defining and at times redefining terms just so that anyone who does not abide by said definition(s) cannot be included. For example, Olson writes...
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-liberal-am-i-is-arminianism.html
Roger Olson
As a classical Arminian, I find much more common ground between my theology and Sanders's than between mine and Helm's or Ware's. And I agree with 19C Arminian theologian John Miley who said that dynamic omniscience (John's term for open theism's view of God's foreknowledge) would not undermine any vital Arminian doctrine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I cannot see how it undermines any Christian doctrine. In my opinion, the furor over open theism among conservative evangelical theologians has been over the top; it borders on hysterical, especially since no crucial doctrine of the Christian faith is denied or undermined by it...Open theism would be a heresy if it blatantly contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture or if it presented a doctrine that absolutely contradicted the gospel. I judge that neither is the case. I find problems in its interpretation of Scripture while admitting that it has much scriptural support. I know of no idea intrinsic to the gospel that it denies. I welcome John's version of open theism (as well as those of Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd) into the Christian theological conversation especially as it is being presented humbly and as a theologoumenon–a hypothesis to be tested and not a new dogma to be adopted by everyone willy-nilly," Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views, 248-51.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)