The Infidel Delusion

“…this book completely destroys Christianity.”

Those words by atheist Michael Martin are located in the blurb he wrote that appears on the back cover of The Christian Delusion, edited by John Loftus (speaking of back cover blurbs, Dale C. Allison, Jr. starts his blurb by instructing us to “Forget Dawkins” and that’s sage advice no matter who gives it). Furthermore, Keith Parsons states of The Christian Delusion that “there can have been few works as effective” at debunking Christianity. Ken Pulliam states: “It demonstrates that those who believe in the tenets of evangelical Christianity truly are deluded.”

The book contains chapters written by a wide range of modern atheists, including Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, and Edward T. Babinski[*]. (If those names sound familiar it’s because we’ve engaged with each of them many times on Triablogue.) Of his contribution to the book, Carrier slapped both of his chapters with a “tour de force” label and confidently assured us, “I doubt I'll ever have to write another [refutation of the resurrection].” He says: “My debunking of [Christian claims on science] is so decisive in this chapter, you won't need to refer anyone anywhere else.”

But such hubris vastly overreaches reality, and Triablogue is here to demonstrate it with The Infidel Delusion.

The Infidel Delusion was written (in alphabetical order) by Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and Paul Manata. This is a true tour de force. By the time I got to Manata’s debunking of Valerie Tarico’s naturalistic reductionism in chapter two, the perfect metaphor had formed in my head: Collectively, these Triabloggian authors were firing intellectual howitzer shells point-blank into a cardboard shanty town.

Each chapter of The Christian Delusion is thoroughly debunked by Hay’s philosophical and theological acumen, Engwer’s encyclopedic knowledge of history, Chan’s scientific training, and/or Manata’s philosophical prowess. Contrary to the tactic The Christian Delusion used—to attack the weakest arguments put forth in the name of Christianity—the authors of The Infidel Delusion dismantled the strongest arguments atheists had to offer. Indeed, if there truly are “few works as effective” as The Christian Delusion, as Parsons claimed, then Triablogue shows atheism to be in a sad state indeed.


A Quick Overview of What’s in The Infidel Delusion
After introductions from Hays, Engwer, and Manata, the debunking of The Christian Delusion begins. In chapter one, Eller’s entire premise is shown to be at odds with the rest of The Christian Delusion, making that book internally incoherent. Eller’s belief that there is no real Christianity, but instead thousands of Christianities, actually destroys the basis for The Christian Delusion by rendering the idea that there is such a thing as Christianity (singular) to refute moot. If atheists are to be consistent, either Eller’s contribution must go or it must stand alone.

Chapter two shows Tarico’s cognitive research to be nowhere near adequate to explain what she thinks it explains. In addition to showing the argument to be self-refuting, Manata makes an excellent case that Tarico doesn’t even understand the issues involved in naturalism and scientific reductionism. Additionally, Chan includes a great deal on the medical issues involved, including debunking the idea that Paul’s vision of Christ on the Road to Damascus could be explained by a frontal lobe seizure.

Chapter three deals with Long’s attempt to show cultural background determines how one will believe. This sort of cultural relativism is a double-edged sword, however. If it works against Christianity, it is only at the expense of destroying atheism in the process.

Chapter four gets us to the heart of The Christian Delusion, the Outsider Test for Faith that forms the key of Loftus’s atheistic apologetic. Hays demonstrates how Loftus doesn’t consistently apply this test since it equally destroys his own view. Engwer shows that the attitude Loftus has about how beliefs are formed doesn’t cohere to Christian experience. And finally, Manata demonstrates that the outsider test is “vague, ambiguous, invalid, unsound, superfluous, informally fallacious, and subject to a defeater-deflector.”

Chapter five reviews Babinski’s flawed view of Jewish cosmology based on uncharitable assumptions about the stupidity of ancient people and their lack of ability to understand figurative language; chapter six shows Tobin’s repeating of common objections to Scripture (creating “dilemma” by ignoring all conservative scholarship, and even most liberal scholarship); and chapter seven refutes Loftus’s claim that Scripture is unclear, ironically in part by showing that if Loftus’s chapter is true, Babinski’s and Tobin’s must be false! But internal consistency is not something The Christian Delusion was concerned with.

Chapter eight deals with Avalos’s claims that Yahweh is a “moral monster.” Yet this once again requires us to reject Loftus’s chapter seven, and furthermore Avalos’s moral relativism defeats his own argument.

Chapter nine deals with concepts of animal suffering as evidence for the non-existence of God. Amongst other arguments they present, Hays deftly shows how Loftus’s claims are unsupported anthropomorphisms, while Engwer focuses on the ludicrous demands Loftus requires of believers to “answer” this “problem” and Manata shows Loftus’s argument is really nothing short of wishful thinking completely divorced from the Christian theology it was supposed to debunk.

Chapter ten reviews Price’s misuse of methodological naturalism, including the fact that Price actually ignores the vast majority of modern scholarship in rejecting the very existence of Jesus as a historical figure. Chapter eleven examines similar weaknesses of methodology in the claims Carrier makes regarding the resurrection.

Chapter twelve examines Loftus’s poor exegetical skills and his inability to understand even simple Biblical passages in context. In critiquing Christian prophecy, Loftus manages to all but ignore the preterist movement and makes some rather basic label errors on the positions he does look at.

Chapter thirteen deals with Eller’s moral claims, especially in light of his rejection of objective morality. The Infidel Delusion shows how his evolutionary claims are insufficient to create any type of morality.

Chapter fourteen shows that Avalos’s argument that atheism didn’t cause the Holocaust is irrelevant to the issue of whether Christianity is true. Finally, chapter fifteen shows that Carrier’s historical claims that Christians are not responsible for modern science is both irrelevant to the issue of the truth of Christianity as well as focused on the wrong issues, even within the context of his argument.

The last section of The Infidel Delusion consists of ten appendices that give us more detail into some of the arguments presented within the various chapters, as well as a look at some of the specific claims made by contributors to The Christian Delusion outside of the scope of that actual book.


Conclusion
The Infidel Delusion debunks the entirety of The Christian Delusion. This is not to say it addresses every single flaw in The Christian Delusion—such would take multiple volumes. But there is no major claim made in The Christian Delusion that withstands the criticism leveled at it in The Infidel Delusion. As Steve Hays wrote in his introduction, “…if The Christian Delusion turns out to be just another white elephant in the overcrowded zoo of militant atheism, then that‘s a vindication of the Christian faith.”

The Infidel Delusion certainly demonstrates this.

Full disclosure: While I did not contribute any writing to The Infidel Delusion, I did edit, collate, and format the ebook.

UPDATE:
[*] To be fair, Babinski classifies himself as an agnostic.

How loving is loving?

Arminians assure us that the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God. But does the Arminian God do whatever it takes, at any cost, by any means necessary, to act in the best interests of sinners?

Just compare Arminian theism with a recent post by Joe Carter, and see the difference between the lengths to which real paternal love will go, and the Arminian deity:

Best Dads in TV and Film
Joe Carter

Father’s Day was last Sunday, but it’s never too late to appreciate good ol’ dad. Here are several categories and candidates for best fathers in film and television:

Best Protector: Bryan Mills (Taken) – Chances are you won’t recognize the name even if you’ve seen the good-but-forgettable 2008 action flick Taken. So why does Mills make the list? Because when faced with every father’s worst nightmare (his his 17-year-old daughter is kidnapped in Paris and forced in the sexual slave trade), Mills uses all his skills and knowledge (he’s a former CIA agent) to find her and bring her home. While the action is pure Hollywood, the message is universal: We dads will do anything in our power to protect our children.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/06/25/best-dads-in-tv-and-film/

Oracular dreams

1. In Scripture, a primary mode of divine revelation is visionary revelation. Scripture contains a number of oracular dreams, which employ that revelatory mode.

Oracular dreams are the same type of revelation as visions. The basic difference is the time of day. Oracular dreams are night visions, whereas daytime visions are inspired daydreams.

One of the striking features of oracular dreams is the symbolic imagery. This means that while oracular dreams are predictive, they are not representational. The dreamer isn’t literally “seeing” the future. Rather, the dream is a figurative analogy of future events.

And that, in turn, raises interpretive issues. There are two ways in which an oracular dream can be understood. One way is if the inspired dream is accompanied by an inspired interpretation. In some cases the dreamer can be the interpreter. Or a speaker within the dream can be the interpreter.

In addition, oracular dreams are embedded within a larger narrative, so that a reader can see how the dream was fulfilled after the fact.

If, however, we didn’t have either of those aids, then it’s harder to perceive the exact nature of the fulfillment in advance of the facts.

2. Although Scripture explicitly identifies some oracular dreams, their presence raises the question of whether some other oracles of Scripture may be prosaic summaries of oracular dreams and visions. In other words, are there cases where a seer has a vision or dream, but instead of taking the time to describe the dream, with all of the emblematic imagery, he simply summarizes the message of the dream?

3. This, in turn, raises some ancillary issues:

i) If many oracles are symbolic analogies, then that affects the terms of the fulfillment. For the oracle will be fulfilled analogically rather than univocally. You can’t go straight from the metaphor to the historical referent. Rather, you must first decrypt the metaphor.

What you have, at the given level of the prophecy, is a one-to-one correspondence between the figurative imagery and the historical referent. But to make sense of that we need to decipher the imagery so that we can draw a direct correspondence between the thing it stands for, and the future analogue. And, indeed, that’s what happens when Joseph or Daniel (to take two examples) interpret oracular dreams.

That has some potential relevance for millennial debates.

ii) This also bears on the inerrancy of Scripture. If the terms of fulfillment are analogous rather than univocal, then we need to make allowance for that distinction. If someone alleges that a Bible prophecy failed, he needs to demonstrate that it failed on analogical terms.

iii) Finally, this has some potential bearing on debates over cessationism, semicessationism, and continuationism. Continuationists sometimes draw a distinction between infallible “revelations” and fallible interpretations. And depending on the nature of the ostensible “revelation,” that distinction might be tenable.

Of course, the pros and cons of that debate turn on many additional considerations.

Gen 28:10-16

10Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran. 11And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep. 12And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! 13And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you." 16Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it."

Gen 37:5-10

5Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they hated him even more. 6He said to them, "Hear this dream that I have dreamed: 7Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright. And behold, your sheaves gathered around it and bowed down to my sheaf." 8His brothers said to him, "Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?" So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.

9Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?"

Gen 40:5-19

5And one night they both dreamed—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison—each his own dream, and each dream with its own interpretation. 6When Joseph came to them in the morning, he saw that they were troubled. 7So he asked Pharaoh’s officers who were with him in custody in his master’s house, "Why are your faces downcast today?" 8They said to him, "We have had dreams, and there is no one to interpret them." And Joseph said to them, "Do not interpretations belong to God? Please tell them to me."

9So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph and said to him, "In my dream there was a vine before me, 10and on the vine there were three branches. As soon as it budded, its blossoms shot forth, and the clusters ripened into grapes. 11Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand." 12Then Joseph said to him, "This is its interpretation: the three branches are three days. 13In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office, and you shall place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand as formerly, when you were his cupbearer. 14Only remember me, when it is well with you, and please do me the kindness to mention me to Pharaoh, and so get me out of this house. 15For I was indeed stolen out of the land of the Hebrews, and here also I have done nothing that they should put me into the pit."

16When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was favorable, he said to Joseph, "I also had a dream: there were three cake baskets on my head, 17and in the uppermost basket there were all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating it out of the basket on my head." 18And Joseph answered and said, "This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days. 19 In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head—from you!—and hang you on a tree. And the birds will eat the flesh from you."

Gen 41:1-7,25-32

1After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows attractive and plump, and they fed in the reed grass. 3And behold, seven other cows, ugly and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. 4And the ugly, thin cows ate up the seven attractive, plump cows. And Pharaoh awoke. 5And he fell asleep and dreamed a second time. And behold, seven ears of grain, plump and good, were growing on one stalk. 6And behold, after them sprouted seven ears, thin and blighted by the east wind. 7And the thin ears swallowed up the seven plump, full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream.

25Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, "The dreams of Pharaoh are one; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one. 27The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears blighted by the east wind are also seven years of famine. 28It is as I told Pharaoh; God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 29There will come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt, 30but after them there will arise seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt. The famine will consume the land, 31and the plenty will be unknown in the land by reason of the famine that will follow, for it will be very severe. 32And the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about.

Judg 7:13-14

13When Gideon came, behold, a man was telling a dream to his comrade. And he said, "Behold, I dreamed a dream, and behold, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent and struck it so that it fell and turned it upside down, so that the tent lay flat." 14And his comrade answered, "This is no other than the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel; God has given into his hand Midian and all the camp."

Dan 2:31-45

31"You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32 The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
36"This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, 38and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. 39 Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. 41And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. 42And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

Dan 8:1-27

1In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. 3I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.
5As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath. 7I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. 8Then the goat became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.

9Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them. 11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper. 13Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?" 14And he said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."

15When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, "Gabriel, make this man understand the vision." 17So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end."
18And when he had spoken to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground. But he touched me and made me stand up. 19He said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it refers to the appointed time of the end. 20As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. 21And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power. 23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great— but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now."

27And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.

Brainless Atheism

Babinski wants to keep reminding us that there’s no correlation between infidelity and high IQ. I appreciate his unwitting services to the Christian faith.

“Second, You both admit you don't know what happens to a fetus, but you also both admit you want to believe that infants who die are not eternally damned.”

i) I haven’t said what I want to be the case concerning infants in my exchanges with Babinski.

ii) Since I’m human, I have the emotional make-up of a human being. But God isn’t human, so I don’t expect that he feels the same way about the same things that I do. I don’t assume that God feels the same way about steak and lobster, or Rita Hayworth, or Italian sports cars, that I might feel.

So I don’t see how that is even relevant to the issue at hand. Assuming there’s a discrepancy between my wants and God’s wants, so what? I’m not God.

iii) Human babies are cute. They’re meant to be cute.

The suicide bomber who murders 30 Israeli teenagers in a Tel Aviv pizzeria started out life as a cute little baby. I’m sure that Ted Bundy was a cute baby. I can only judge by what I see before me. But that’s not the whole story. Appearances can be deceptive.

BTW, not all kids are cuties. There’s the kid who vivisects the neighborhood cats.

There are also horror films in which cute kids are turned into little vampires and zombies. They go from being cuties to beasties. That’s a good metaphor for what happens when you remove common grace.

iv) The objection to infant damnation usually assumes the torture chamber view of hell. I do not.

It also assumes that you remain whatever you were when you died. But I don’t assume that.

For instance, I don’t assume that if a baby dies and goes to heaven, he remains a baby for all eternity.

“My reply is this, your coulds and wishes disagree with those of Calvin, Edwards and Augustine (an early church father) who agreed that according to their studied interpretation of the Bible infants who died unbaptized were damned. Look up their arguments and how and why they based them on Scripture. Argue with your Christian mentors from the past.”

i) I don’t think baptism has any bearing on the issue one way or the other.

ii) I’m not answerable to Calvin, Edwards, and Augustine. I’m answerable to God.

iii) I’ve made my case for my understanding of the sacraments on more than one occasion.

“Third, If you both wish to believe that infants that die unbaptized go to heaven, then also note that abortion would thereby ensure the salvation of more souls percentage-wise than any evangelistic tent rally ever did.”

I already deflated that argument in a previous post. But Ed can’t think on his feet. Ed can only read aloud what is written on his cue cards.

“Fourth, let's even assume for the sake of argument that we could baptize babies in the womb with holy water and a syringe and some prayers by a Calvinist minister before aborting them. (Even though the Calvinist minister might abhor abortion he might compromise enough to at least ensure the salvation of each fetus before it is aborted.) That would certainly ensure their salvation, even per Augustine.”

I don’t think baptism ensures anyone’s salvation. We are saved, not by the water of baptism, but by the blood of Christ.

I don’t believe in holy water. For purposes of baptism, any water will do.

“Lastly, if you can prove that Augustine, Calvin and Edwards misinterpreted the Bible concerning original sin and the damnation of infants…”

Original sin doesn’t ipso facto damn anyone. Every heavenbound Christian is born in sin.

“I suppose the best you can do is reach a proposal of indeterminacy as Steve has, but that is also to admit that God does not exactly make a family great after a miscarriage, since they don't know whether their child is suffering eternity.”

Why is that a reason to be an atheist rather than a Christian? It’s like telling a cancer patient that it’s better for him to forego cancer therapy, without which he has a zero chance of recovery, than to undergo therapy, which gives him a 50/50 chance.

“You can hope all you want, and as an agnostic I too hope for the best.”

The hope of a Christian, and the hope of an agnostic, are hardly equivalent.

“According to Augustine an unbaptized infant was a ‘limb of Satan’”

Augustine is not my rule of faith.

“Some Catholic saints even experienced ‘spiritual visions’ that depicted little children suffering in hell.”

Why should I put any stock in their visions?

“But recently the Catholic Church…”

Since I’m not Catholic, why should I care?

“JONATHAN EDWARDS - The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever… Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell?”

i) Since Edwards hadn’t been to heaven at the time he said that, he’s in no position to say that.

ii) Perhaps he was expanding on some of the colorful imagery in Revelation. But aside from the fact that Revelation uses picturesque metaphors, the martyred saints in Revelation take moral satisfaction in the just punishment of their mortal enemies. That’s hardly equivalent to parents and children.

“R. A. Torrey [one of the contributors to The Fundamentals, a series of tracts published in the 1920’s that helped popularize ‘fundamentalist’ Christianity. Torry argued in the above case that slaughtering the children was an act of infinite mercy because it ensured them eternal paradise.]”

Torrey was a fine Christian. But his conclusions are only as good as his supporting arguments.

“A small Danish (Protestant) sect went around killing as many newly baptized infants as they could discover…A. J. Ayer, Voltaire.”

Voltaire? Surely you don’t think he’s a reliable church historian?

“Some (Catholic) Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that those infants went to heaven. – Bertrand Russell.”

Once more, surely you don’t think Russell is a reliable church historian.

“THEOLOGICAL OPTION #1: THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES GO TO HEAVEN. This first option is the most optimistic, loving, and forgiving, but seems to turn abortions into “altar calls” with 100% assurance of eternal salvation for each and every aborted fetus.”

Even if we were to judge that argument on purely pragmatic/utilitarian grounds, it doesn’t work on its own terms. If you abort every baby, then that action will (ex hypothesi) save the aborted generation at the cost of dooming the human race. Fewer human beings would be saved in the long run.

“THEOLOGICAL OPTION #2: THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES GO TO WHEREVER GOD ORDAINS THEM TO GO, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL. According to various Bible verses, God “ordains” all things, including the premature deaths (including executions) of fetuses, pregnant women, and children. In other words, each soul in this world ‘gets’ what God has “ordained” for it, regardless if they are aborted in the womb, or reach old age.”

True. However, that’s neutral on the fate of dying infants.

“THEOLOGICAL OPTION #3: THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES WHOSE BODIES ARE NOT BAPTIZED, GO TO HELL. Theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards considered it right for God to send to hell the souls of fetuses whose bodies were not baptized before they died. Their doctrine was called ‘infant damnation’ and it was taught by Christian churches for centuries. So, all fetuses that are not baptized before they die go to hell.”

I reject the underlying sacramentology.

“THEOLOGICAL OPTION #4: BAPTIZE FETUSES IN THE WOMB. If baptism spiritually cleanses the fetus’ ‘original sin,’ ensuring it goes to heaven, then why take any risks of it not getting baptized, and instead baptize fetuses by inserting a syringe filled with water into the womb? This would be especially useful in cases where the life of a fetus and/or the mother was at risk. Indeed, the option of syringe baptism continued to be taught to Catholic seminarians right up till Vatican II in the 1960s.”

One doesn’t have to look very far to find out that I’m not overly sympathetic to Catholic theology. So what’s the point?

“Attempting to counteract such Catholic excesses as he viewed them the Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, forbade mid-wives (or anyone else for that matter) from hastily baptizing sickly newborn infants, because Calvin believed in waiting a few days until a proper baptism ceremony in church could be conducted. According to Calvin, it was God’s providential choice, not human effort, that determined who would wind up in heaven or hell, and if the fetus or newborn didn’t survive long enough to have a proper baptismal ceremony, it was God’s will that it die prematurely and/or suffer in hell for eternity.”

“And/or”? Damnation is hardly interchangeable with premature death.

Chicken or the egg

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Apparently, it's the chicken.

However, the jury's still out on why the chicken crossed the road, why novel foods taste like chicken, whether the sky is falling, and whether a rubber chicken or a rubber ducky would swerve first if both were racing toward another at full speed.

Josh McDowell, Dhimmitude in America

Sharia love?

Idealism and Van Tilianism

Godismyjudge said...

Both idealism and the coherence theory of truth disconnect truth from reality. They confuse the ontological question of "why is this true?" with the epistemological question of "how do we know?" In the process they loose sight of the self-evident principle that cannot be rationally denied that consciousness observes reality.

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2010/07/steve-hays-on-presuppositionalism.html?showComment=1279369240641#c2499675978567336880

Since I’m not an idealist, I could let this slide. However, the objection is so problematic, both on its own terms, and in relation to Van Til, that I’ll venture a few comments.

1.It’s odd that you’d classify idealism as a form of scepticism when idealists tend to be rationalists (e.g. Blanshard, Leibniz, McTaggart).

2.One needs to distinguish between epistemological idealism (e.g. Blanshard) and metaphysical idealism (e.g. Berkeley, McTaggart).

Likewise, Blanshard’s version had more to do with his views of causal necessity and the nature of perception than the mind-dependent nature of reality (a la Berkeley).

3.Although idealism and the coherence theory of truth often go together, they are not inseparable.

4.Since I’m not an idealist, I’m in partial agreement with you that idealism (a la Berkeley) disconnects truth from reality. At the same time, that’s how a non-idealist views idealism.

In the nature of the case, an idealist doesn’t view himself as disconnecting truth from reality. To the contrary, for him, the rational is the real, and vice versa.

One wouldn’t get very far with a sophisticated idealist like Gödel by saying that he disconnected truth from reality. For instance, Gödel once wrote a celebrated essay for Einstein’s festschrift in which he reasoned from the theory of relativity to the static theory of time. Likewise, quantum mechanics is often cited in support of idealism. In addition, there are scientists like David Bohm, and Rupert Sheldrake who incline to panpsychism because they think that’s where the empirical evidence leads. In a similar vein, David Chalmers and John Leslie are quite sympathetic to panpsychism.

That’s not my own interpretation of reality, but proponents sometimes draw attention to experience or phenomena which any comprehensive worldview must integrate one way or another.

Again, I don’t say this to defend idealism or panpsychism (which I reject). I’m just making the point that an idealist is aware of all the same phenomena that the opposing positions are aware of. He can square appearance with his understanding of reality. Indeed, he happens to think that his position has more explanatory power than the competition. And he’d say it’s the nonidealist who is guilty of dichotomizing truth and reality. You wouldn’t make much headway with an astute idealist like Timothy Sprigge by pointing to “reality”–as if his own theory is oblivious to reality.

5.While I don’t think the coherence theory of truth is a sufficient stand-alone theory of truth, I think the coherence theory of truth has its place in dualism. Just as the correspondence theory dovetails with concrete truths of fact, the coherence theory dovetails with abstract truths of reason. The correspondence theory works well enough for empirical data, but it’s unsuited to abstract objects like mathematical truths and logical relations.

It’s also the case that even physical reality begins in the mind–the mind of God. The material world has its origin in the idea of the material world. God’s exemplary concept. So idealism is true to some degree, even if it fails to capture the whole truth.

7.To say that “consciousness observes reality” is only “self-evident” if you take direct realism to be self-evident. Since direct realism is eminently disputable, you’ve overstated your case.

6.Gordon Clark was arguably closer to idealism than Van Til. Clark was a big fan of Blanshard. And the position of later Clark is hard to distinguish from pantheistic idealism.

By contrast, Van Til criticized Clark’s rejection of sense knowledge for failing to do justice to natural revelation. Van Til was a scientific realist, whereas Clark was a scientific antirealist.

7.When I ascribe a modified coherence theory of truth to Van Til, this is what I mean. Van Til had a position which was structurally similar to epistemological idealism in the following respect: he viewed truth in holistic terms.

And this is because, as a Calvinist, he regarded every event as a meaningful event. Every event had a purpose in the plan of God. There were no brute facts. No discrete, surd events. Each event was related to every other event, for God intended each event, and–what is more–he intended each event to contribute to a meaningful and fully-integrated totality, in a part/whole relation.

In that respect, it’s analogous to a system of internal relations. However, unlike some idealists (e.g. McTaggart), Van Til was not a necessitarian. He didn’t collapse truths of fact into truths of reason. Truths of fact were contingent truths, contingent on God’s decree. What is more, God freely decreed the world.

A Lengthy Interview With Stephen Braude

Many modern critics of Christianity hold a naturalistic worldview or something close to it. They suggest that there's little or no evidence that would challenge their worldview. I think that's often because they're highly ignorant of the evidence.

The radio program Coast To Coast AM recently had a lengthy interview with Stephen Braude, a paranormal researcher and professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland. Go to approximately the nine-minute mark in the You Tube clip just linked, then follow the links on the right side of the screen to listen to later segments of the interview.

I disagree with much of what's said by the host and Braude. I think they neglect a lot of relevant evidence.

But Braude is highly knowledgeable about evidence for the paranormal, and he makes a lot of significant points during the interview. He discusses some of the best cases of paranormal activity that we have (best in the sense of having the best evidence), such as the nineteenth-century medium Daniel Home and Ted Serios' ability to make images from his mind appear on photographs. He also discusses a woman in Florida who has gold-colored brass appearing on her body and on other objects in her presence, among other phenomena. You can see some video footage of this woman, as well as some still shots of Ted Serios' photographs, in a shorter interview with Braude found here. Go to the video titled "UMBC In the Loop: Stephen Braude".

Braude has been in Europe lately, partly to investigate a group in Germany that's been claiming to experience some paranormal phenomena. Apparently, Braude received some sort of grant to investigate it. He said that he has video footage of a table levitation, but some of the more significant phenomena he witnessed weren't caught on tape. He says something about seeing a non-human hand come out of a person's mouth, for example. He seems to be largely undecided about the validity of the group's claims, though he thinks at least some of the activity is genuine. Some aspects of the context in which the group is operating are suspicious (a darkened room, asking people to make noise at particular times during a seance, etc.). But he seems to think there's some evidence for the validity of the phenomena, and he's in the process of doing more investigation.

He said that he's retiring later this year. Apparently, though, he's only retiring from his position at the University of Maryland teaching philosophy. He said that he'll continue researching the paranormal. And he's working on another book.

I'm almost finished reading one of Braude's books, but I haven't read any of his others. From my limited exposure to his material, I have the impression that he underestimates the potential role of non-humans in the phenomena in question. At least in the book I've been reading and in the interviews I've listened to, he says little about God and seemingly even less about demons and angels. He'll mention the possibility of one human mind affecting another or what effect the human mind might have on the world around us, and he discusses such possibilities at length. But he says so little about how other beings, like God or demons, might be involved. (He may take a different approach in other books, for example, but then I would wonder why he says so little about other beings in the book I've been reading and in multiple interviews I've heard. Maybe I'd have a different impression if I read or listened to more of his material.)

At one point during the recent interview, he offers an explanation for why people tend to be afraid when they first witness something like a table levitating. He suggested that people are afraid because of the event's implications about the power of the human mind. That may be true in some cases. But I think a better explanation, and I don't know why Braude avoids discussing it so much, is that people are afraid of a more powerful being, such as a demon, who would do them harm. If human minds in general have the power to do things like levitating tables, then presumably we could respond to what other human minds are doing with the power of our own minds. But what if a more powerful being is doing it? I think that's more relevant to the fear people have.

The involvement of non-human agents seems to make more sense of the evidence in some cases (for a variety of reasons). I'm open to the idea that humans have more abilities than we currently realize. I suspect we do. And I think that's a partial explanation of what we see in the paranormal. But my impression is that Braude is too focused on that aspect of the explanation and is neglecting other aspects.

What's Included And Excluded In Romans 4?

I've been having a discussion with a Roman Catholic that might interest some of you, in the comments section of the thread here. The discussion is about justification, especially what's taught in Romans 4.

The NT as Scripture

One of the unquestioned assumptions we often run into in discussions of the canon is that it took Christians a certain amount of time to elevate the NT to the canonical status of the OT. But it isn’t obvious what that assumption is based on.

1. Presumably, that assumption hinges on something like this: Jews had venerated the OT for centuries, so there’d an initial barrier to overcome in raising the newly-minted writings of the NT to the same exalted status. That’s not something which would happen overnight.

Now perhaps there’s some truth to this argument. Indeed, many Jews never made that transition. They never became Christians.

2. However, even on its own terms, it doesn’t follow. After all, an OT prophet like Moses or Isaiah didn’t ask his audience to mull over what he said for a few centuries before honoring his message as the word of God. No. The obligation to believe and obey was instantaneous.

There was, of course, a distinction between true and false prophets, but if a prophet was a true prophet, then his message demanded immediate acceptance.

3. But even if, for the sake of argument, we postulate that Messianic Jews were somewhat reluctant to acknowledge the NT writings as Scripture, most converts to the Christian faith were converts from paganism, not Judaism. And I don’t see that a pagan convert to Christianity would have any psychological threshold to cross before receiving the NT writings as inspired Scripture. Nothing over and above his conversion itself. For the OT was never his standard of comparison.

If anything, his heathen background might predispose him to be too inclusive rather than too exclusive concerning what was “inspired.” Too indiscriminate rather than too discriminating.

4. We do have an intermediate group: gentiles who converted to Christianity via Judaism. In other words, gentiles (Godfearers, proselytes) who first converted to Judaism, then converted to Christianity.

But in their case, I don’t see that accepting the NT as Scripture would be any more of a hurdle than accepting the OT as Scripture. After all, they already came to the OT from scratch.

Is ID science?

Does Permission Exculpate God?

Arminians often attempt to insulate God from moral complaints against His sovereignty by falling back to the “permissive” argument. For example, in dealing with the problem of evil, they assert that God does not deterministically cause any evil to occur, but instead He merely allows it to happen, and because he permits it instead of ordaining it, He is somehow no longer culpable. On Triablogue, we’ve often discussed this issue and why it isn’t defensible on philosophical grounds for an Arminian to claim that permission could exempt God from culpability. In the process, we’ve also made many exegetical arguments for our position as well. I do not wish to rehash old ground anew, but instead to add yet one more Scriptural proof that permission alone is insufficient to exempt someone from culpability. And that Scriptural proof is found in the Law of Moses.

Exodus 21:28 states:

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable.

Now an ox is an animal, and as such it as a rudimentary will. It is not an inanimate object, in other words, and it will often do things that the owner does not wish for it to do. Anyone who has ever owned livestock—or even pets, for that matter—knows of the frustration of wanting an animal to do something and the animal not doing it.

What is clear from this verse is that the owner of the ox is not held responsible for the actions of the ox. Presumably, this would be due to the fact that the ox’s will is not the owner’s will, and that is why the owner is not liable. The owner did not wish for the ox to kill anyone, the owner did not plan for this, therefore the owner is not culpable.

Thus far, it looks like this would be evidence for the position that if God permits something evil to occur He is not culpable for that. However, the very next verse reads:

But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

And here we see that the escape to “permission” cannot remove culpability from God. For we see that it is still the case that the owner of the ox does not will that the ox gore anyone, and we still see that the owner does not plan this event to happen, yet nevertheless the owner is held responsible with the same penalty imposed as if he had murdered the man himself. Why is the owner culpable? Because he did not take measures needed to reign in an ox “accustomed to gore.” He is negligent for not stopping that which he knew was dangerous, and therefore he receives the same penalty as if he had personally acted instead of the ox.

It seems to me that this verse neutralizes not only all Arminian arguments designed to exculpate God, but it even neutralizes Open Theist arguments. For the Arminian is now in the unenviable position of acknowledging that God has exhaustive foreknowledge and knows not only which ox will gore which person, but also which person will murder another. And if the owner of an ox is culpable when he knows full well that he has a dangerous ox, then God surely must likewise be culpable if He knows full well that a created being He put on Earth is a danger to others. Likewise, the Open Theist is not let off the hook because even if God did not know at first the human beings were going to commit evil, once they did and He did not take measures to restrain that evil, then this verse would show God is just as guilty as if He Himself did the evil. So clearly, the argument that “permission” exculpates is invalidated by the Law itself.

Now for the record, and because I know that some will misread what I write here, I am not saying that it really is the case that God is culpable for evil and that Arminians will just need to learn to deal with it like we icky determinists do. Rather, I am only saying that one cannot escape to “permission” to get God “off the hook” given the typical starting point of morality that most Arminians (and not only Arminians, mind you) have. Since I am a Divine Command Theorist, then my own position doesn’t start where theirs does. Indeed, I don’t have to use “permission” to get God “off the hook” because God is never on the hook to begin with under DCT.

Butterflies and bull feathers

Some comments I left at Beggars All:

steve said...

It’s ironic that a Mohammedan would presume to compare sovereign grace to rape when you consider the fact that Islam not only has the custom of honor-killings, but honor-rapings (i.e. gang-raping a girl/woman who “shamed” her family, even if she was the innocent victim).

steve said...
Ken said...

"I am grateful the Grandverbalizer19 sometimes speaks out against violence and hypocrisy from other Muslims..."

But isn't that rather disingenuous on his part? He has no voice in the Muslim world. He's just an American kid who converted to American-style Islam, and speaks out from the safety of his American surroundings.

Effective criticism must come from the top down. From political and religious representatives in positions of power and prestige throughout the Muslim world.

He doesn't have the luxury of defining or redefining Islam to make it more humane or democratic. Islam defines him. So he can't disassociate himself from the institutional violence and hypocrisy of his adopted religion. It's a package deal.

Let him go to Saudi Arabia, stand on a street corner with a megaphone, and see what happens to him when he tries to peddle his libertarian form of Islam at the epicenter.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

“Wow! Can sure feel the love and grace over here!”

You set the tone with your incendiary “rape” analogy.

“Steve first off I'm not a Mohammedan. Just so you know that terminology is 100 plus years out dated. So I just needed to bring you up to speed.”

I don’t capitulate to politically correct usage.

“Mohammedan” is accurate. You don’t follow the true God. Rather, you worship the projection of a false prophet.

“There is major flaws with this. 1) It assumes that people who go to the hospital and give consent do so of their own free will and volition outside of the will of God. To admit this is pantheism and shirk-association of partners with God.”

i) It makes no such assumption. I wasn’t contrasting those who give consent with those who don’t. I was simply responding to Waltz’ defamatory comparison between rape and acting on behalf of a second party without his consent.

ii) As a Calvinist, I don’t think any man either can or does act outside the will (i.e. decree) of God.

“2) Your deity set up the whole scenario to begin with! Don't try and play nice.”

i) That’s one of the things which makes him God. The Creator of the world.

ii) Do you think that Allah didn’t set up the whole scenario to begin with?

“The analogy we are looking at is someone who unleashes a virus upon humanity and than introduces the cure and says to everyone see how great I am that I have stepped in and given vacinations to people so far gone out of their mind that they cannot speak of their own.”

i) Unless you think natural and moral evils take place outside the will of Allah, you’re in the same boat.

ii) The Fall was an evil event, considered in isolation. However, the Fall also faciliates various greater, incommensurable, and second-order goods.

Apart from the Fall, you and I wouldn’t be here. If Adam never fell, the genealogy of man would branch off in a very different direction. Different human beings would take our place. So there are tradeoffs. A fallen world comes at a cost, but it also has compensatory benefits which are unobtainable in an unfallen world.

“The nail in the coffin is this. What would you say of Physicians who upon seeing the sick, crippled and dying capraciously upon their own whim chose which ones they would save and which they would not?”

i) Since the God of biblical Calvinism doesn’t act “capriciously” on a “whim,” you’re burning a straw man.

To the contrary, he acts rationally, purposefully, and justly.

If you think otherwise, then you need to present an actual argument. Tendentious adjectives won’t do the trick.

ii) If the patient was a suicide bomber (you know, the kind that your religion multiplies like rabbits), then I’d commend the physician for letting him die of his wounds while tending to the needs of his victims.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

“Well steve my boy, I set no tone that was not already given by your Christian brethern.”

Well, my boy. Ken, for one, is the very model of the Christian gentleman, so if you were truly calibrating your tone to match the tone of my Christian brethren, then you should take a cue from Ken. It’s his post.

“Steve please do not give such conflicting messages. I am seeing a man desperately trying to flash 'lion' but all I am seeing are feathers?”

And all I’m seeing are bull feathers from the bull verbalizer. But do continue.

“So Adam and Eve sinned with the decree of Allah?”

i) If by “Allah” you mean the Mohammedan deity, then they didn’t sin by his decree since Allah (in that sense) is a nonentity.

ii) But if you’re using “Allah” as simply the Arabic name for God, as Arab Christians do, then, yes, God decreed the Fall.

“If there are 'second-order goods' pray do tell what are the first-order goods?”

The unfallen world.

“*Ahem* How does that help establish your original analogy again? So you capitulate very good!”

It’s irrelevant to my original analogy. I was merely responding to your irrelevant objection.

“Such as? For example would we be aware that one of Allah's attributes is the forgiver?”

One can’t experience the grace of God in a sinless world. So that’s an example of a second-order good.

“Really? Than let's see some Sola Scriptura in action shall we. Textual evidence please?”

Take Rom 9:17,22-23, where God gives an underlying rationale for election and reprobation.

“What you see as tendentious I see is objective, especially in the light of such sloppy analogy.”

You’ve given us your subjective assertion in lieu of any objective argument.

“I'll take this tired statement of yours and put it up on my shelf; with all the others made by Caucasian males over the age of 50;whom see a world they once controlled slowly giving way to a world of colour.”

The Mideast was Christian long before it was overrun by the Saracens. Do you classify Arab Christians as “Caucasians”?

And why do Mohammedans enslave and murder Black African Christians if they cherish peoples of colour?

You can also spare me the faux radical chic line about “males.” Islam is the most male chauvinistic religion on earth. A religion by and for men. A religion which celebrates the most brutal forms of misogyny while sanctioning male libertinism to a fare-thee-well.

steve said...
David Waltz said...

"Up to your usual caustic and misrepresenting behavior I see...You have (and I suspect with a dark, dubious and premeditated purpose in mind) implied that I have accused the Reformed position on soteriology as 'rape'; I did not do so, and I do not believe such. All I said is that I 'understand' the position of those who actually do so—understanding another position is not an endorsement (well, except to those who seem to relish in misrepresenting others for personal pleasure)."

Thanks for illustrating your capacity for dissimulation. What you've now done is to misrepresent your original statement. But this is what you originally said–this is what I responded to:

"I personally do not like the term 'rape' for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love."

That goes well beyond mere intellectual understanding of the objection. Rather, that expresses sympathy with the objection. "That...despite protestations, when one breaks [it] down...one is left with the fact...as such, there is some truth in the claim it is 'a forced love.'"

So you object to the rhetoric of "rape," but not the underlying charge.

When you left the church of Rome, I kept my silence. I gave you your space.

It was my hope that you might be leaving error for truth, rather than leaving one error for yet another error.

But, no, one of your first moves was to make yourself a doormat for Islam–even though Islam has been the sworn enemy of the Christian faith since its inception.

You’re not a truth-seeker, David. You’re a social butterfly who flits from one pretty flower to another. For you, it’s a noncommittal exercise in comparative religion, like Huston Smith. You’re tolerant of everything except commitment. The consummate syncretist. “Fair” to all and faithful to none.

We're A Long Way From Legalism

Michael Brown recently did a radio program on the subject of time management. I highly recommend listening to it. He cites some statistics and makes many good points. I've discussed this issue in the past (for example, here and here). It's a subject that's especially important to address in a context like twenty-first-century America. I suspect that it's neglected, in part, for the same reason some other sins aren't discussed much. People don't want to step on too many toes.

Think about your priorities. Think about the details of your life: how you spend your travel time to and from work, what you think about while you're at work, whether it makes sense to do the housework and yard work you do, whether your relationships make sense, etc. Review your life often. Memorize and think about passages of scripture concerning themes like the primacy and greatness of God (Jeremiah 2:13, Ephesians 3:8), how brief and fading this life is (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, James 4:14), and how you're influencing other people (Psalm 102:18, 2 Timothy 2:10). Study church history. Think about how other people have lived. Consider what others will think of how you've lived.

Dave Armstrong: Cowardly Anti-Catholic extraordinaire

"Rhology" Deletes My Comments at John Q. Doe's Boors All Blog...This is one of a long line of examples of ridiculous anti-Catholic behavior and blatant double standards...This is the same-old same-old intellectual cowardice from our anti-Catholic friends. I was booted off of Eric Svendsen's discussion board when it was the anti-Catholic place to be, some years ago. James White or David T. King have kicked me off of White's chat room many times (when I had done nothing whatever wrong). Now Rhology adds himself to the honor roll of "delete 'em when ya can't talk rationally with 'em" folks, along with John Q. Doe and Steve Hays (whom I thought till recently was pleasantly immune to this cowardly trait). 

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/07/rhology-deletes-my-comments-at-john-q.html

Actually, that's not a double standard. That's a Davidic standard. No one deletes more comments by Dave Armstrong than...Dave Armstrong. Dear ol' Dave is an auto-delete machine.

So that's not a double standard. Rather, that's merely measuring his comments by his own yardstick. Why should Rhology et al. value Armstrong's comments more highly than Armstrong himself? If Armstrong has a habit of self-deleting dozens of his own comments, then that, by his own admission, makes him a cowardly anti-Catholic. Since Dave Armstrong regards Dave Armstrong's comments as eminently delete-worthy, who are we to take issue with his low self-estimate?

Two Wills in God: Not Just for Calvinists

Two Wills in God: Not Just for Calvinists by Jeremy Pierce

What's a presupposition?

Dan Chapa seems to be confused about what Van Til meant by “presuppositions.” He makes oddball statements like “If God's existance [sic] can be demonstrated, then why presuppose it?” “Well given my observation that I have arms, my also presupposing that I have arms is minimally irrelevant, if not downright impossible.”

However, I don’t think there’s anything mysterious about Van Til’s usage. From my reading, Van Til uses “presuppositional” as a synonym for “transcendental” reasoning. Indeed, one synonym for presuppositional apologetics is transcendental theism.

So what does it mean to reason presuppositionally (i.e. transcendentally)? Well, as one scholar defines it:

Transcendental arguments are partly non-empirical, often anti-skeptical arguments focusing on necessary enabling conditions either of coherent experience or the possession or employment of some kind of knowledge or cognitive ability, where the opponent is not in a position to question the fact of this experience, knowledge, or cognitive ability, and where the revealed preconditions include what the opponent questions. Such arguments take as a premise some obvious fact about our mental life—such as some aspect of our knowledge, our experience, our beliefs, or our cognitive abilities—and add a claim that some other state of affairs is a necessary condition of the first one. Transcendental arguments most commonly have been deployed against a position denying the knowability of some extra-mental proposition, such as the existence of other minds or a material world. Thus these arguments characteristically center on a claim that, for some extra-mental proposition P, the indisputable truth of some general proposition Q about our mental life requires that P.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/trans-ar/

Van Till gives this type of argument a specifically Christian twist.

Hurtado on historical scholarship

My own position is clearly to the right of Hurtado's. That being said, it goes to show just how far "out there" nullafidians like Carr actually are when you see a moderate like Hurtado take them to task. And while one could (and should) dismiss Carr as just another crackpot, he represents the same paranoia we find in Richard Carrier and Hector Avalos.

***************************

larryhurtado permalink
Mr. Carr: I know that web-blogging seems to invite the “fire-from-the-hip” approach to issues and by anyone with an opinion. I do invite open discussion and debate on relevant matters. But the truculent tone of your contributions does cause me to give some advice.

It’s rather important in serious critical discussion of historical matters to understand that an assertion doesn’t amount to proof of anything, and that the absence of corroborating evidence for individuals (e.g., of the sort you say you’d like) doesn’t justify the conclusion that they never existed. It’s one possibility, which in turn would have to be tested with equal critical scrutiny, and on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, it is legitimate to consider whether there may be legendary characters in the Gospels narratives, entirely possible in principle. But sweeping generalizations of the sort you’ve lobbed aren’t sound method.

So, go off and do the critical research and publish it in a proper refereed journal or with a respectable publisher and get critical reviews. That’s how we scholars make and try to establish our views. You’ve made your claims clear. Thanks. But they’re no more established by making them than there were before doing so. So, do the detailed analysis required. Publish it. And give us the reference(s) when it’s out. I think that there are some criticisms that can be levied at some of Bauckham’s arguments and claims, too. But at least he’s done the hard work involved (acquiring the languages, working through the scholarly literature, etc.) that justifies his work being critically considered.

larryhurtado permalink
I’m not sure what Steven Carr would count as evidence. He asks for signed affidavits of first century people, but that’s not available for anyone from antiquity, Julius Caesar, anyone.

So, what do historians usually work with? Well, texts of first-century provenance that appear to posit personages as real people. So, e.g., in the Gospel accounts we have a number of named figures, without any other introduction, which would suggest that the authors expected their readers to recognize the figures. Technically, of course, this suggests only that they were known names/figures, which could still allow for them being fictional-but-already-accepted figures at the date of writing. In the case of Simon of Cyrene, Mark’s gospel identifies him as “the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark 15:21), again without further introduction, which most scholars have taken as alluding to two guys known to the original readers. We have a Rufus mentioned in Romans 16:13, for example, whom some suggest could be the same guy mentioned in Mark.

With all due allowance for the growth of legend etc., we should recall that people often speculated that Pontius Pilate was a fictional character too, until the inscription mentioning him turned up in Caesarea Maritima in the 60s.

larryhurtado permalink
I repeat that Mr. Carr echoes legitimate questions about the gospels and their narratives (but neither he nor others should labor under the impression that they’re new or unconsidered questions, one needs only to probe the scholarly literature beyond web banter to find the discussions). We can discuss any such question here, but as this is my seminar (so to speak), I do ask that participants express themselves as serious interlocutors, not as schoolyard feisties.

So, e.g., Mr. Carr, what leads you to *assume* (and without any reason for doing so given) that the Gospels’ authors “hide” their identify for unworthy reasons? *Much* of ancient literature is anonymous, from our earliest pieces (e.g., the Enuma Elish) onward. Indeed, “signed” writings begin to appear in the Hellenistic period a bit more, but it was still a relatively newer literary practice.

The gospels are judged by most scholars (of whatever persuasion on religious matters) to have been “in house” texts, i.e., written by/for fellow Christians. Indeed, many scholars believe that the authors (or some of them) wrote to/for particular circles of Christians, and so may well have been known to the original recipients.

But the authors also seem to have seen their task as formulating and giving a “rendition” (NB: musical analogy, not the CIA) of Jesus-tradition that was largely already known.

So, e.g., Mark introduces “Pilate” without bothering to indicate what he was, suggesting that stories of Jesus’ crucifixion were already circulating before Mark wrote.

So, it is more commonly thought by scholars that the anonymity of the Gospels sprang from the authors’ sense that they were serving a *community* of interests, conveying what they believed was sacred truth/tradition, and, so out of modesty felt it inappropriate to present their accounts as their own literary products (even though it is evident that each author seems to have exercised considerable editorial control over the finished accounts).

As for corroboration that the cast of characters in the Gospels were real people, I repeat, a fair question. But, again, why the antagonistic tone to it, Mr. Carr? (You have your own web site where you can rant and engage in schoolyard fisticuffs, so please restrain yourself to calm discussion here. If you aren’t interested in learning anything, but merely wish to joust and work out personal “issues”, this isn’t the place for it.)

We don’t have anyone from the 2nd century BCE who verifies that he met Judas Maccabee either. Yet virtually all serious scholars take 1 Maccabees (with its cast of characters) as a basis for trying to reconstruct the Jewish revolt against Antiochus IV. The point, again, is that the absence of corroboration isn’t proof of fiction. That’s what’s called a non sequitur.

We do have corroboration of some characters. E.g., in Paul’s letter to the Galatians we have first-hand references to Kephas (Peter), James (Jesus’ brother), John (Zebedee), Barnabas, and Titus (all of whom are also mentioned in Luke-Acts.

Now, unfortunately, it appears that first-century Christians didn’t think to lay aside the sort of affidavits that Mr. Carr (and, dear me, all of us) would have liked. So, should we accuse the ancient gospels authors of wholesale deviousness and duplicity, or leave open the likelihood that the uncorroborated characters might well be as real as the ones corroborated? “You pays your money and you takes your choice.”

As I tell my students, in history lots of things are possible; the job of critical historical work is to judge what among the possibilities may be more likely. That requires a lot of knowledge, a lot of weighing of options, and trying to be as clear-headed and unpolemical as you can.

Now, unless I’m a bit premature, I think we’ve just about run out this thread, so let’s move on to something else. Results: (1) We don’t have first-century affidavits testifying to the existence of a lot of people, well, for most people, including a number mentioned in the Gospels; (2) this can be taken as proof that they (and, uh, most people in antiquity) never existed and any references to them in narratives of any kind are fiction and devious duplicity, or as accidents of history (like Forrest Gump’s mama said, “S*** happens”.)

For those interested in serious scholarly investigation of relevant matters, I recommend, inter alia, another book by Richard Bauckham, _Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church_ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990), which will also have oodles of bibliography for still further reading.

larryhurtado permalink
In critical historical work we try to keep our assumptions as controlled as we can. So, it’s a fair point to note that Paul doesn’t mention Judas. But what to *make* of that? Ah, that’s the real question. Options: (1) Could be Paul didn’t know about Judas, and perhaps because the Judas-story came along later (not a new suggestion); (2) Could be that this isn’t significant at all or has some other reason behind it.

Paul (in the uncontested letters) doesn’t refer to Pilate’s involvement, or the temple authorities, or Roman soldiers, either, however, so should we call all these characters into question too? Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe this isn’t an entirely adequate way of determining the authenticity of all these characters and their actions.

Now it’s true that the passion narratives are studded with allusions to, and appropriations of, OT texts, this intended to bring out the religious meaning of the events narrated. Some have proposed that the OT texts may even have been mined to construct some/all the passion narratives. Possibly. But that’s a very strong claim that requires a very strong argument, not simply asserting it. The commentaries, and serious books have canvassed all this. (Contrary to some assumptions, the Internet hasn’t really produced much in the way of new thoughts, just a wider circulation of them, including a lot of discredited ones.)

For one detailed study the following:
Raymond E. Brown, _The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels_ (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994).

larryhurtado permalink
It’s getting a bit wearisome to have to correct repeatedly Mr. Carr’s sweeping claims and his polemical (i.e., he’s made up his mind) approach/tone. But, for the record, a few comments more.

We *do* have historical documents referring to all the “cast of characters” for which Carr (and, Lordy, the rest of us too) would like still further information and references. OK. Carr would like more, and is suspicious of what we have. But it’s not a *lack* of evidence, only a body of evidence of which he’s suspicious. OK. We’re done with that. No need to keep on re-asserting that you’re suspicious, Mr. Carr. We’ve got it.

Now what on earth he means by some of his other statements, I can’t figure out. The authorship of the Gospel of Mark was not disputed. The only name we have attached to it in ancient tradition is “Mark”. That may be right or wrong, but ancient Christians don’t seem to have felt confused about the matter. So, there’s no mystery to allege as suggesting some sort of conspiracy.

We don’t have references in Paul’s letters to lots of narrative events in the Gospels, Judas and lots. So?? These letters presuppose readers already converted, already introduced to the Christian message and Lord knows what body of traditions. Letters to churches are one genre, and gospel narratives another.

I repeat again that it’s a fair *question* whether any of the named or unnamed characters in the Gospels might be legendary (aside, of course, from those in the parables, etc., who are presented as instructive fictions). But that it is a *question* does not make the question itself an answer to anything. And the questions have been explored quite considerably by scholars, and with various proposals. So, we don’t need Mr. Carr suddenly to burst into the room as if we’ve all been stupidly plodding along in our naivete. Pa-leese!

Carr refers to “plagiarising”, but I don’t get the reference. In any case, people in the ancient world operated often with a different sense of authorship than moderns, and often felt much freer to appropriate from other works. Indeed, the anonymous authorship of the Gospels suggests no desire to claim ownership of what they wrote, not an intention to deceive.

Anyway, Mr. Carr, if you think that the whole guild of NT scholars is so incompetent as you judge (as a mere amateur you think yourself able to show us all up), then perhaps you have nothing to learn from this site and should bid your farewell. Or visit as you choose. But we all have your views well in mind now. So, thanks, and selah.

larryhurtado permalink
James, Jesus’ brother, is mentioned in Acts 15:13; 21:18. (James Zebedee’s death is related in 12:2. And the simple reference to “James” without need of any other qualifier is commonly taken as reflecting this figure well-known among early believers).

Mr. Carr: I request that you read others’ postings more carefully. I have repeatedly granted that questions can be asked about the historicity of any character in the Gospels. I have simply reminded you that this does not require non-historicity of the characters. So, please stop distorting my comments as “all Hurtado can do is say that these people existed because they are in the Gospels”. That’s not what I’ve said. You seem to want constantly to polarize simplistically, rather than probe in honest investigation. If that’s the case, then go somewhere else. If you’re interested in honest investigation, then stop distorting what others say.

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/eyewitnesses-and-the-gospels/

Are grace and rape synonymous?

Some comments I left at Beggars All:

steve said...
I'd note that this Mohammedan was all nicey-nice over at Articuli Fidei when Waltz made himself a doormat for this enemy of the faith. But see how he now unfurls his true colors.

9:22 PM, JULY 12, 2010


steve said...
David Waltz said...

"Me: I personally do not like the term 'rape' for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is 'a forced love'."

Everyday we have patients wheeled into the ER who can't give informed consent. It maybe because they are comatose, or high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain.

So the ER physicians act on their behalf when the patient is unable to act in his own best interests.

Do you think ER physicians should be prosecuted for "rape" when they intervene to save someone who is not in his right mind, who is unable to make decisions for himself in his current diminished condition?

What about a spouse or grown child who has to care for a senile parent or husband or wife. Should the caregiver be prosecuted for rape?

Parents often make decisions for young children, against their will, to protect them from harm. Should caring parents be prosecuted for "rape"?

It's a remarkably revealing and twisted view of saving grace to cast it in such invidious terms.

9:06 AM, JULY 13, 2010

Caner's guard dogs

I haven't posted a lot on the Caner affair. There are more important things in life. However, while reading a post at TFan's blog last night, I got drawn into an exchange with one of Caner's guard dogs. One wonders why some folks are so personally and emotionally invested in this man. Why they defend him at all costs. It's like a homosexual lover who flies into a rage whenever somebody slights his boyfriend.


steve said...
Tim G said...

"Are you saying that misspeaking is lying? If the intent was NOT to give false information and yet the information was false - it is lying or misspeaking."

There are things that a man can misstate, and things that he can't–especially when we're dealing, not with an isolated utterance, but a pattern.

Unless Caner is suffering from senile dementia, he can't repeatedly misstate where he was born, where he grew up, whether or not he trained to be a suicide bomber, &c.

Ironically, you're using a dishonest argument to defend a dishonest man.

"The problem in this scenario as you present it is that you have already determined the intent as if you knew and do know the heart. That is a huge issue in my book."

How is that a "huge issue"? By that standard, we could never convict a defiant defendant of a crime. As long as the accused pleaded innocent, we couldn't conclude that he was lying, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, unless we could read his mind.

Likewise, by your standard, it would be okay to let your cub scouts go camping with a Scout Leader who's a convicted pedophile, for as long as he denies the charge, it would be wrong to assume he's lying about his past.

The fact that you and others go to such lengths to defend Caner illustrates the fact that, for better or worse, fans and followers often take after their leaders or idols.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 2:41:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"He did not enhance his resume. He did not create anything that was not there."

In a fallen world, there's a symbiotic relationship between deceivers and self-deceivers. Tim graphically illustrates the Biblical truth that some men have an insatiable appetite for self-deception. They are what makes false teachers possible.

The fact that Tim calls himself a pastor and "church strategist" is a disgrace.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 2:46:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"For one to so do is to bear false witness."

By your standard, the allegation of perjury is self-refuting. By your standard, you can't rightly accuse someone of perjury unless you can read his mind. For he can't bear false witness unless he intends to bear false witness, and only God can discern his intentions.

Therefore, you just convicted yourself by your own rules of evidence.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:13:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"Geisler also points out that in the Swedish culture, the place of birth of one's father is considered to be the nationality of the children."

Even if that were true, Caner wasn't addressing Swedes, he was addressing Americans. That's not a cultural assumption in American society. And since Caner is thoroughly acculturated to American society, it would be duplicitous to say something that means one thing to the speaker, but something quite different to the target audience.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:17:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"For one to so do is to bear false witness."

It is pointless for you to quote provisions from the OT penal code when you smother the law code with your unscriptural standard of evidence. By your lights, an OT judge could never convict a defendant, for he could never infer criminal intent. In that event, the OT law code would be unenforceable. A dead letter from the time the ink was dry on the parchment.

People are entitled to a reasonable presumption of innocence, not a blanket presumption of innocence. People can nullify any presumption of innocence by guilty actions.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:39:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"Intent requires a clear thorough plan. None is there."

That's demonstrably false. For instance, a man can intend to commit a crime without having a "clear thorough plan." Many burglars are bunglers. They don't think ahead. They don't have contingency plans. They act on the spur of the moment. Doesn't mean they lack criminal intent.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:44:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"One more thing. I have no emotional tie. I am passionate about people destroying the character of others for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda."

That seems to be a popular argument among Caner's fanboys. However, that argument obviously cuts both says. If Caner's opponents have a theological agenda, then, by converse logic, his supporters also have a theological agenda. So you discredit yourself in your effort to discredit others.

"I also think that one needs to realize that any preacher in America could be found guilty if all were held to the standard that Caner's critics are holding him to."

Well, you certainly have a low opinion of the Christian ministry. However, that explains a lot, for you're certainly living up to your low expectations.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 5:01:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"Your refusal to repent and your continued attacks towards me are telling of your arrogance and lack of spiritual guidance. "

In order to defend Caner you just stooped to smearing the entire Christian ministry by dragging everyone down to his level.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 5:10:00 AM