"He is before all things"

DALE SAID:

“Steve, if you're going to throw an accusation of inconsistency, you need to show that your opponent clearly asserts or implies both P and not-P. That something strikes you as new may just show that you're still coming to understand the position.”

Actually, it shows you backpedaling from your initial claims because you failed to anticipate the objections. You’re having to improvise as you go along.

“Steve, what is the inconsistency exactly? I agree that Is. shows YHWH (the Father) to be the only creator and all-provident governor. This is wholly consistent with his authorizing Jesus to do things on his behalf, even massively important things like judging humanity.”

So the Father is the “only” Creator. Yet John 1:3, Col 1:16, and Heb 1:10 attribute creation to Christ.

“Eh... I don't think I have a problem of inconsistent texts here. Do you?”

That’s not a counterargument, Dale.

“You should lay off the accusations of weaseling, and pay more attention to the arguments.”

You’re not presenting arguments. You’re presenting assertoric denials. You should lay off the bare assertions.

“Ah, the joys of question begging. Pound that table. :-)”

This is what it says:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things… (Col 1:16-17a).

Feel free to explain how that doesn’t attribute universal Creatorship to Christ.

i) The merismic wording of the text denotes totality.

ii) The text also contains an expansive allusion to Gen 1:1. So Paul thereby identifies Christ with the Creator God of Gen 1.

iii) 17a minimally ascribes preexistence to Christ, where Christ is prior to the creation of the world (par. Eph 1:4). In light of 1:15, it likely includes priority in rank as well as priority in time.

“This is probably true for any analogy, and any theologian. I'm afraid that you have not shown any ad hoc elements of my view. This is a hard charge to make stick, of course.”

Notice Tuggy’s evasive modus operandi, which is to issue assertoric denials rather than present responsive counterarguments.

“No, it doesn't. The Incarnated Son is still wholly divine, and still, in your view, was Creator. It seems these will logically imply that he has the same rights as before.”

As usual, you’re equivocating. The Son qua Son has a timeless status. The Son qua Incarnate has a variable status.

“But this does not imply that no other being can be described or addressed as ‘God’ or ‘a god.’ e.g. Heb 1:8-9 features a being addressed as ‘God,’ and this being has a god, who is YHWH/the Father.”

That presumes your unitarian interpretation of Heb 1:8-9, for which you’ve offered no exegetical argument.

“Steve, you're pretty deep into the poisoning the well fallacy here…”

Sometimes well water is contaminated. That’s why we need water inspectors.

 “If I'm such a weasel, why should any reasonable person argue with me at all?”

Why argue against any cultist? Because specious falsehoods can be influential and harmful.

“Yes - he does things uniquely (in the OT) associated with YHWH. But he doesn't do what only YHWH can do.”

In which case you instantly forfeit your OT unitarian prooftexts. For the Isaian passages don’t drive a wedge between things “uniquely” associated with Yahweh and things which only Yahweh can do. To the contrary, Isaiah is discussing things that are uniquely true of Yahweh, in contrast to the idol-gods of heathenism.

Tuggy keeps attempting to play both sides off against the middle. 

“Oh, I understand this all too well. This is to sweep an inconsistency under the linguistic carpet.”

That’s a metaphysical distinction, not a linguistic distinction.

“I think Randal Rauser has shown this distinction to be either trivial or mistaken. So, no, I don't think there's any such important distinction, despite the theological tradition of this sort of discourse. Steve, as you spell it out, one of them's timeless, the other in time. Therefore, the one Trinity isn't the other (since they differ). Therefore, there are (at least) two Trinities. Yikes!”

Maybe you think acting obtuse is an intellectual virtue. That’s fine with me. Just another strike against anti-Trinitarianism.

You yourself quoted 1 Cor 15:24-28. Let’s assume a unitarian interpretation for the sake of argument.

i) In that event there’s a metaphysical distinction between God in himself, and God in his economic identity. For what is true of God at one time isn’t true of God at another time. During the church age, God transfers dominion to the Messiah. At the consummation, God resumes dominion. 

ii) By the same token, this passage is consistent with the Trinity. The consummation fulfills, and thereby terminates, the redemptive dominion of the Son. He’s completed his Messianic mission. That economic role is thereby retired–when the time comes.

Clash of the Titans

One popular argument for NFP is that “artificial” birth control “usurps” the sovereignty of God.

I guess the short answer to this argument is that any “God” whose sovereignty can be usurped by men is a “God” whose sovereignty deserves to be usurped by men. A “sovereign” God whose sovereignty can be overrruled by his creatures wasn’t a very sovereign God in the first place. He's ripe for deposition. 

Catholics who use this argument seems to have a mythological outlook, where Kronos overthrows Uranus, and Zeus overthrows Kronos. 

The Grand Canyon

http://jimhamilton.info/2011/07/19/the-grand-canyon-with-canyon-ministries-and-answers-in-genesis/

Not sure he meant it that way

I'd said:
Athanasius was a Sola Scripturist. How do you know he was wrong?


Christopher Lake replied:

Athanasius was a "Sola Scripturist"? How, then, does one explain the following statement from him about Mary?
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness...(blah blah blah)...while you hold God in your hands."

Now, why would he reply that way? A bit of a Freudian slip, perhaps, that one who holds to Sola Scriptura couldn't possibly hold to the cult of Mary as held by the Roman Catholic Church. Because the Scripture doesn't teach anything resembling Rome's cult of Mary.
I'm not sure he meant it that way, but that's sure how it sounded.

Back to nature

Good Catholic couples practice “Natural Family Planning.” They oppose “artificial” contraception cuz it’s…well…so…artificial. Artificial contraception is wicked because it wickedly subverts the natural process that God designed for procreation.

But Natural Family Planning is just a tiny part of the Catholic back-to-nature movement.

Good Catholics don’t use antibiotics since that meddles with the nature process of infection.

Good Catholics don’t use anesthesia since that blocks the natural pain receptors which God designed.

Good Catholics don’t use chemotherapy since that tampers with the natural course of cancer.

Good Catholics don’t use electric light bulbs since that interferes with the diurnal cycle.

Good Catholics don’t use heaters and air conditioners since that snubs the natural environment which God made for us and put us in.

Good Catholics don’t use telephones since that subverts the natural limitations of vocal projection.

Good Catholics don’t use cars and airplanes since that subverts the natural limitations of bipedal locomotion.

Good Catholics don’t use pesticides since that thwarts the natural process of predation, parasitism, and decomposition.

Good Catholics don’t wear eyeglasses since that opposes the natural aging process.

Good Catholics don’t use refrigerators and freezers since that frustrates the natural decay rate.

Good Catholics don’t wash their hands after using the bathroom since that overrides the natural spread of germs.

Good Catholics don’t drink fluoridated water or pasteurized milk since that contravenes the natural transmission of pathogens.

Good Catholics don’t brush their teeth since that impedes the natural process of tooth decay

Good Catholics live in nudist colonies by the beach, where they wait for coconuts to fall from trees.  

Apostasy in Pastoral Theology

My RTS thesis is now available online:

http://www.rts.edu/Site/Virtual/Resources/Student_Theses/Hays%20-%20Apostasy%20in%20Pastoral%20Theology.pdf

This is basically a revised and expanded edition of an earlier work I posted (Apostasy & Perseverance).

Aside from being amplified and updated in certain respects, it also corrects some inadvertent mistakes that crept into the MS of the earlier work.

I’d like to take this occasion to thank three men:

I want to thank John Frame for serving as my thesis advisor.

I want to thank James Anderson for technical assistance in preparing the PowerPoint slides for the viva.

I want to thank Peter Pike for reformatting my Word document as a thesis.

Two more interviews on the historicity of Scripture

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2011/07/two_more_interviews_on_the_his.html

Predator

Let’s deal first with the simple question. “If Christianity were proven false, and Islam true, would you simply drop your current moral convictions and adopt those of Islam because you found you ‘had the wrong God’?” This question is, I think, misphrased. The important question is not what I would do under the envisioned circumstances, but what I should do. What I would do is an autobiographical fact about my personal psychology, which is of little philosophical interest. Moreover, it would be presumptuous for me to make predictions about what I would do under different circumstances (remember the apostle Peter on the night of Jesus’ betrayal?). What is of interest rather is what I should do under the envisioned circumstances. So stated, the question’s answer is clear: if Islam were proven true and Christianity false, then Islam would be true, and so of course I should believe in it. The same answer would present itself to the atheist: if atheism were proven false and Islam true, then should you obey the commands of Allah? Of course, for then Islam is the truth, and you really do have those moral obligations, however difficult it might be for you to stomach them.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

i) Craig is half-right. If Christianity were false, that should make a difference in how we view Christianity. It’s not like Don Cupitt, DZ Phillips, and John Spong–who continue to practice a Christian creed they no longer believe.

ii) However, Craig takes too much for granted. He seems to view epistemic duties as worldview-invariant. That we have a moral obligation to believe the truth and abide by the truth in whatever possible world we find ourselves. But that doesn’t make much sense.

Does every possible world have objective moral norms? Aren’t some possible worlds amoral?

iii) Take another example: suppose human beings were created by a race of evil aliens. The evil aliens created us to be prey in a game where we are hunted down by hunters whom the evil aliens also created for that purpose. The aliens enjoy the vicarious spectacle of watching the game play out.

The aliens really exist. This is a true state of affairs. But does that mean the aliens are in a position to obligate us to do their bidding? I don’t see how.

The aliens are unworthy of our allegiance. How can immoral beings impose moral obligations on other beings? They don’t deserve our obedience.

iv) Rather, compliance would be a pragmatic consideration. If Allah were the true God, then it would be foolhardy to defy Allah. You’d lose. You’d suffer. So you go along to get along.

It’s like citizens who live under oppressive, despotic regimes. They don’t believe in the regime. They hate the regime. But they keep their true feelings to themselves. They make expedient moral compromises just to survive. 

Weed Whacking

In Pittsburgh, there are streets along creeks that flow down through the hills, and we live on one of these streets. Some of these are among the oldest neighborhoods in the area. Ours is one of these.

For our own privacy, we have allowed some of the vegetation to grow unhindered, and it does provide some nice privacy for us. Unfortunately, we've been asked by the municipality to remove this vegetation. So yesterday, I bought myself a machete and started going at it. I have to say, I had a blast, attacking these weeds.

What was the ancient church in Rome like? See “House Churches in Rome”

For several weeks now, I’ve been summarizing what some of the major commentators have been saying about the people and the network of house churches found in early Rome in the first century. This is the Rome to which Peter supposedly traveled, where it is thought that he may have died (though historically, there is practically no mention of him at all being in Rome; when Irenaeus talks about “…the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome …” this is the reality to which he was referring, and it is this reality of which we can say he was not an entirely accurate reporter of history).

There is a reason why I’m going into such detail on this. Recently, I’ve been citing from the James Puglisi work How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? In that work, I’ve quoted Herman Pottmeyer saying that “anyone who wishes to come to an understanding of the papal ministry cannot avoid dealing with the history of this ministry. The historical facts are not disputed...” In an earlier article from that same work, John P. Meier, a leading Catholic Biblical scholar, pointed out, “A papacy that cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins can hardly hope to be a catalyst for unity among divided Christians.” So the implication is that, until this point, the papacy has not given a “credible historical account of its own origins.”

There is yet another reason to understand all of this. I’ve also ordered a copy of the new Loftus book, The End of Christianity.

That work begins (Chapter 1) with this little but bold proclamation:

The end of Christianity is not some far-off dream, nor is it on the verge of occurring. Instead, it happened two thousand years ago—in fact, Christianity never even began; it was stillborn….there is no such thing as the religion of Christianity; at best it is a multitude of related but distinct and often-enough opposed traditions, shifting and swaying with the windsof local culture and passing history … (Dr. David Eller, “Christianity Evolving: On the Origin of Christian Species”, Chapter 1 in Loftus, ed., ©2011“The End of Christianity”: Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, pg. 23.)

There’s no need to fear Eller. With this statement he immediately shows himself to be a hack, given that the life of Christ and the origins of Christianity are extraordinarily well attested in history.

But on the other hand, it is the Roman Catholic church and its constant protestations of its own authority, which are extraordinarily poorly attested in history, which give individuals like Eller the kind of toe-hold they need to bloviate and sell books. Eller’s statement is true about Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism was stillborn. That’s what Eller and the others can attack freely; it’s the falseness of Roman Catholicism that gives people like Eller the opportunities they have to attack Christ and Christianity.

But again, the historical work that is being done on the earliest church is going to be immensely helpful in sorting out fact from fiction. This historical work is going to be like Trigonometry and Calculus: these things will always be taught, so long as the subject is taught. But the question going forward will be, will anyone care to understand them?


Introduction and Summary
The nonexistent early papacy
House Churches in the New Testament

Households in Ancient Rome
Part 1: Households in Ancient Rome: An Introduction
Part 2: Christians and Jews in First Century Rome
Part 3: Commerce and Household Communities
Part 4: Household Leadership as Church Leadership
Part 5: Patronage and Leadership

The People of Romans 16
Aquila, Priscilla, Acts 18:2 and the Edict of Claudius
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, διάκονον and προστάτις”
Andronikos and Junia, Part 1
Andronikos and Junia, Part 2

Moving forward, my hope is, Lord willing, to continue to expand on this list and this material, and to make it available in an easy to digest form. In the same way that the printing press aided Martin Luther and helped the Reformation sweep across Europe, the Internet and its ability to make accurate information available immediately around the world, is only going to help to clarify the misunderstandings about Christianity and what it means to have faith in Christ.

The Dale follies

Dale wrote:

Sir Anthony, thanks for stopping by!

Yes, this is a crucial issue. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul says for us Christians there is but one God and one Lord. Readers like Bauckham know that it is impossible to tow the line that there’s no quantifying here, but only simple predication. (i.e. calling the Father “one-God” and calling Jesus “one-Lord”. No, it’s counting. But he concludes that surely something is a God if and only if it is a Lord, and vice-versa. Perhaps part of the idea here is that Paul has mentioned gods and lords in expounding his previous comment about many “so-called gods.”

 

But your point is that kurios needn’t be a title for YHWH – a point which is obvious from its varied usage in the NT; sometimes it seems to mean no more than “Sir” or “Master.” But it is all the more obvious in Ps 110:1, when translated into Greek. They used kurios for both the divine name, as well as for this adoni who gets exalted – originally the king, in messianic application, Jesus. And this was for them a central text, as you point out; I think you’re right – this is part of the reason why “Lord” came to be the common way to refer to the exalted Jesus in the NT.

 

I think more needs to be said about “God” and “Lord” in 1 Cor. If memory serves, Bauckham ignores something pointed out by many other commenters, namely that there was a common pagan distinction, none too clear perhaps, between “gods” and “lords.”

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2927#comment-94424

Yet another illustration, redundant I know, that Tuggy hasn’t a clue when it comes to basic exegesis. Just for starters, the text which underlies 1 Cor 8:6 isn’t Ps 110:1, but Deut 6:4.

Therefore, that’s the controlling text. That’s what governs the semantic force of “Lord” and “God” in 1 Cor 8:6.

But Tuggy laps up whatever Buzzard pours into his saucer.  

The joy of adolescent sex-ed

You know the old stereotype about adolescent boys who learn the facts of life from other adolescent boys when they have no one else they feel comfortable consulting. I suppose, in the Internet age, that that’s gone the way of the dinosaur. For better or worse, information is only a mouse click away.

However, that old stereotype occurred to me as I was skimming some comments at Called to Confusion:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/

Start with comment #149, and take it from there.

Here we see a commenter (David Meyer) who’s asking if it’s morally permissible for a husband to have conjugal relations with his pregnant wife.

Of course, that takes the Catholic position to its logically absurd conclusion. But for now I wish to focus on a different point:

Why doesn’t it occur to David that maybe, just maybe, that’s a question he should ask his priest? And why does it not occur to the other respondents like Sean Patrick to tell him that he ought to consult his priest? Isn’t the priesthood the retail end of the Magisterium?

They attack sola scriptura. They attack the right of private judgment. They insist on the absolute necessity of the Magisterium.

Yet here they are, groping for answers to questions as practical and fundamental as conjugal relations. And where do they go for answers? They turn to each other, like adolescent boys who, instead of consulting their parents or family doctor, use the locker room as their information clearinghouse for SexEd 101.   

The utility monster

The argument from evil may be the most popular argument for God’s nonexistence. In addition, some prominent infidels (e.g. Richard Dawkins, John Loftus, Richard Carrier) have been touting Sam Harris’s recent book on secular ethics. Likewise, many infidels been defending Harris in his debate with William Lane Craig.

Well, here’s a striking expression of Harris’s ethical outlook:

Nozick draws the obvious analogy and asks if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly “yes.” There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape. If there are beings who stand in relation to us as we do to bacteria, it should be easy to admit that their interests must trump our own, and to a degree that we cannot possibly conceive. I do not think that the existence of such a moral hierarchy poses any problems for our ethics.

Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape (Simon & Schuster, 2010), 211.

Suppose we substitute “God” or “Yahweh” for “superbeings.” Mind you, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of Yahweh, yet many infidels view Yahweh as a kind of “utility monster.”

Where does that leave the argument from evil? Again, I’m just addressing the atheist on his own terms, viz.

Would it be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of Yahweh? Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly “yes.” There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape. If Yahweh stands in relation to us as we do to bacteria, it should be easy to admit that his interests must trump our own, and to a degree that we cannot possibly conceive. I do not think that the existence of such a moral hierarchy poses any problems for our ethics.

"In him the fullness of deity dwells bodily"

DALE SAID:

The subordinationist unitarian takes what you can call apparent Christ-creator texts this way. I don't think they in fact teach Jesus to have created. My point was that even if they teach that he created, you would need to rule out this rather obvious, agential way to take them, which was so popular with the 2nd c. "fathers."

You’re free to qualify the force of your previous statements. Keep in mind, thought, that I was responding to what you said at the time, and not your ex post facto revisions

Until you rule this out, it's hard to see why such would imply that Jesus is God himself, or even that he's divine in the same sense the Father is divine.

Agential categories are not a logical alternative to the full deity of Christ. There are different types of agential relations. In a master/slave relation, the slave can act on behalf of the master, but a slave is only a slave. Just about any slave can play that role.

In a father/son relation, by contrast, a son can also act on behalf of his father, but the dynamic is very different because father and son are intimately related to each other. Two of a kind.

Likewise, take a king/prince relation. Royal subjects will defer to the crown prince, but not merely because he’s been authorized to act on the king’s behalf.

One difference is that if the royal subjects snub the prince, the king will take that as a personal affront in a way that wouldn’t be the case if they snubbed a mere courtier. A son naturally represents his father. It’s not just a legal or social convention–like sending a courtier.

Even more to the point, the prince isn’t merely acting on the king’s behalf, but in his stead. For one day, the crown prince will actually take his father’s place. Royal subjects, or adjoining kingdoms, know that by dishonoring the prince they are not merely dishonoring the king who sent him–they are simultaneously dishonoring a future king. One day the crown prince will rule over them in his own right.

Even if the old king doesn’t avenge the slight to his son (it may not be politically expedient to do so, perhaps he needs to preserve a military alliance), the crown prince will settle the score when he assumes the throne. By snubbing the crown prince, they are making enemies with a future king.

The sort of imagery we have in, say, Ps 2, evokes and exploits these social and emotional connections.

Of course, humanitarian unitarians have every right to help ourselves to the Jesus as God's agent idea, for it is central to the NT the Jesus acts as God's agent, on God's behalf. This is why Jesus emphasizes that he's been given authority to do things one might assume only God himself could do - e.g. forgive sins, send God's spirit, judge humanity, giving new life, speak God's word, etc. (John 5:27, John 12:49, 17:2; Mt. 9:8, Mt. 28:18; Lk 10:19)

Several problems:

i) That defies your unitarian prooftexts in Isaiah. Tuggy plays a double game. When he’s casting about for unitarian prooftexts, he turns to Isa 40-48, which underscore Yahweh’s unique, incomparable claims. But when Tuggy wants to relativize what the NT says about Jesus, he must relativize what the OT says about Yahweh. So he constantly oscillates between these two opposing strategies. 

How much can God delegate to a creature? Tuggy bounces back and forth between the inimitability of God in Isaiah over against the imitability of God in the NT.

ii) In addition, NT ascriptions go beyond instrumental ascriptions. Take Col 1:16-17. The Son isn’t a creature creating other creatures. Rather, the Son is the universal Creator. The Son stands in categorical contrast to the created order. 

We could also discuss Col 2:9, which certainly goes beyond instrumental/agential language. For more details, see Moo’s commentary.

iii) You’re also selective about what details you press. But as I pointed out before, that cuts both ways. For instance, the image of the crown prince who assumes his father’s throne is corollary to the image of the geriatric king who abdicates the throne. Take the depiction of God as a white-haired old man in Dan 7:9. Take the depiction of the heir apparent in vv13-14.

Here we have the familiar story of an old king who’s been grooming the firstborn son to take over, to reign in his place. The reigning monarch is over-the-hill while the crown prince is in his prime. Out with the old, in with the new. The transition of power from one generation to the next.

Unitarians pick-and-choose which details of which depictions they wish to take to their logical conclusion.

Of course, if Jesus were YHWH himself, or were equally divine, he wouldn't need to have such authority granted to him by another.

Which fails to take the Incarnation into account.

Paul prophesies a sort of climax of all this authority-giving by God:

 

1 Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 15:26 The last enemy to be eliminated is death. 15:27 For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. 15:28 And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

I already dealt with that passage–and others like it:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/for-he-must-reign.html

("God" throughout is the Father, as is normally the case in the NT.)

A red herring. When two parties are in view, different designations will be used for each to distinguish the grammatical subjects. And, indeed, Paul is using “God” as a proper name for the Father in this passage.

But unitarian usage requires “God” to be used as a common noun for the Father, and to be reserved for the Father alone. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly. Unfortunately, Tuggy has a very limited repertoire of arguments at his disposal, so he recyles the same, often contradictory, arguments rather than revising his stale arguments to address the counterarguments.

About "divine" intertestamental intermediaries. I don't put much weight on them; this is a dark subject. I only cite them for examples of beings other than YHWH, but who serve closely with him, "bearing his name".

Oh. So now you don’t put much weight on them. Seems to me you put a lot of weight on them when it served your purpose:

In a religious atmosphere where it is presupposed that God is not a man, one can heap exalted terms, terms normally reserved for God, onto that special man, the Son of Man, and people will not infer that that man is God himself. Over and over, you ignore the crucial points that predictions about YHWH can be fulfilled in his special agent, and that beings other that YHWH can be called by names and titles normally reserved for YHWH - even the proper name, ‘Yahweh’!

You say whatever you think you can get away with at the time.

In addition, you also confuse two distinct issues:

i) Does Jesus bear the name of “Yahweh.”

ii) Does Jesus have attributes or exercise prerogatives that are uniquely associated with “Yahweh.”

There are passages like Isa 40-48 where “Yahweh” is the name of the individual who has certain prerogatives or attributes. “Yahweh” (as well as Elohim) is his designation. And, of course, Isaiah would have to attach a name to the property-bearer so that readers know who he’s referring to.

However, when Christians say Jesus is “Yahweh,” they don’t simply mean he goes by that name (or the Septuagintal equivalent in NT Greek).

No, they also mean he has the prerogative and attributes that are uniquely associated with that named individual. And they say that because that’s what the Bible says about Jesus.

This, of course, being done to Jesus at his exaltation. (Phil 2:9) I suppose that in your view, he should have had this name restored to him; but, that's not what it says.

i) You often talk as if you never understood the Trinity in the first place. There’s a difference between the Son qua Son and the Son qua incarnate. What’s true of the Son qua Son is not conterminous with the Son qua incarnate, or vice versa.

By the same token, there’s a distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. The immanent Trinity subsists in a timeless state.

By contrast, the economic Trinity has a history, with successive stages in the life of God. So, no, the Son doesn’t have the same standing throughout the economy of salvation. Rather, it has its ups and downs.

ii) Moreover, you’re selective in what you pick out. You disregard the ascription of divine coequality in Phil 2:6. For detailed analysis, see Fee and O’Brien in their respective commentaries.

The pill

Just a little bit of background info on the pill:

1. There are two main types of "pills": the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) and the progestin only pill (POP). COCPs have the hormones estrogen and progestin whereas POPs have only progestin.

2. COCPs and POPs also come in different forms. Generally oral. But they can also be delivered via other methods such as intramuscular injection.

3. The COCP has a 0.5/100 women years (WY) failure rate. That is, if 100 women used the COCP for a year, then 0.5 of them would get pregnant. Whereas the POP has between a 0.3 to 5/100 WY failure rate.

4. Of course, the pill could fail in women with certain conditions or diseases. For example, if a woman has problems in her gastrointestinal system absorbing the pill. If she vomits or has diarrhea. If she's taking other drugs which could interfere with the effects of the pill. But these women should be advised if they visit a doctor. But by far the most common reason for failure is user error i.e. the woman didn't take the pill as indicated.

5. There are three main ways contraceptive pills prevent, well, contraception:

a. Prevention of ovulation.
b. Production of cervical mucus.
c. Development of a hostile endometrium.

As far as I'm aware, no one really takes issue with the first two. After all, if there's no ovulation, then there's no egg for the sperm to fertilize in the first place.

As for the second, cervical mucus is mucus in the woman's cervix. Contraceptive pills would cause cervical mucus to become more viscous so that sperm can't easily enter further into a woman's body to fertilize an egg. So that's fine too.

But many people take issue with the third one. When people say the pill causes the development of a hostile endometrium, what they mean is this development of a hostile endometrium occurs because there's a constant (rather than cyclical) level of progestin (progesterone). A constant level stops the endometrium from becoming secretory which in turn results in an atrophic endometrium. The endometrium is thinner, there are less blood vessels feeding into it so as to support an embryo, etc. So it's significantly harder for an embryo to attach itself to this "hostile" endometrium.

6. I think Steve had a good response to the "remote" objection. I'd add in order for an embryo to fail to attach to an atrophic endometrium, it means the first two must've failed. But the first two are highly unlikely to fail if a woman takes the pill as indicated. Still there is a "remote" chance it could happen. But if a healthy adult woman takes the pill as indicated, either COCP or POP, then at least all the numbers I've seen seem to indicate prevention of ovulation occurs at rates in the high 90th percentiles. Of course, not every woman is "healthy." Much more could be said here.

7. Also, there's apparently some debate over whether the pill actually causes a hostile endometrium or not. For example, here is some info from a Christian medical doctor hosted on a Christian pro-life website which actually argues that the hostile endometrium theory isn't necessarily valid and so taking the pill could possibly be permissible:

[T]he third proposed method of action, the so-called “hostile endometrium theory”, has little direct evidence to support it. Drug manufacturers have heralded it from the beginning without proof, and it has been echoed by two generations of investigators without verification. There is indirect evidence that the OC [oral contraceptive] produces a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining, and there is direct evidence from the field of in vitro fertilization that a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining is less likely to allow the attachment of the new human being when it enters the uterus. However, when a woman taking OCs does ovulate, the corpus luteum (the ovarian follicle turns into the corpus luteum after ovulation) produces ten to twenty times the levels of both estrogen and progesterone seen in a non-non-ovulatory pill cycle. This results in the growth of stroma, blood vessels, glands, and glandular secretions to help prepare the lining for implantation. If there is no conception after ovulation, the corpus luteum ceases to function about two weeks after ovulation and menses follows. However, if conception occurs following ovulation, the embryo releases the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (HCG), which stimulates the corpus luteum to continue its function until the placenta takes over hormone production two months later.

The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action. The medical literature clearly supports the claim that the uterus becomes thinner and less glandular as a result of the OCs, however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles. It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false. If a woman on OCs ovulates and conceives, everything changes: through the HCG’s affect on the corpus luteum, and the corpus luteum’s release of high levels of estrogen and progesterone, the uterus is able to nourish its new guest very well.

It is noteworthy that in a normal menstrual cycle, on the day of ovulation, the endometrium is not receptive to implantation. If the embryo were to drop down through the fallopian tubes into the uterus on that day, it could rightly be called a “hostile endometrium”. But following ovulation, the corpus luteum transforms this hostile endometrium into a receptive, nourishing bed, where the embryo will attach about one week later after its trip through the fallopian tube, and where the baby will continue to develop until birth.

8. That said, I don't know how recent the research is on which the Christian doctor is basing his comments. Personally, I'd like to take some time to look into the most up to date research about the pill causing a hostile endometrium (if there is any). Perhaps start with PubMed. It could be that recent research does indeed prove the hostile endometrium theory valid, which would mean this aspect of the pill could be an abortifacient. If so, then it could be ethically problematic for Christians. But at least from what I can tell at the moment it seems debatable. Hopefully others more knowledgeable will weigh in.

9. BTW, here's an image of the relevant female reproductive anatomy:

Reformed bioethics

All three come down pretty hard on the birth-control pill because of its abortifacient potential, though Wilson doesn’t mention the pill by name, he does refer to the command against destroying life as prohibiting the use of birth-control methods that work by abortifacient means. For those unfamiliar with the issue, the pill works by making the womb inhospitable to a pregnancy. If conception does take place, it becomes very difficult for the brand new baby to attach to the walls of the uterus and begin its gestation. In essence, the baby, only a few cells big, would starve to death.

There is no solid medical evidence that this does actually happen, but the manufacturers of the pill acknowledge it as a possibility in the instructions that come with the drugs. But even if the chance is remote, Christians have no place putting the lives of their children in jeopardy and I applaud these Reformed pastors for taking a stand against it for that reason.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/

The principle ("even if the chance is remote, Christians have no place putting the lives of their children in jeopardy") seems far too strong. After all, most of us do put the lives of others in jeopardy to one degree or another. An obvious example is driving. When I drive, that carries the risk of accidentally killing another driver, or innocent bystander. Indeed, that's more than just a remote chance. Given enough drivers, accidental death is inevitable. Does that mean it's immoral to drive a car?

One possible counter is that driving involves mutual consensual risk. Each driver potentially endangers other drivers. It's a shared risk for a shared benefit.

However, there are two problems with that counter:

i) It's not mutually consensual for all concerned parties. Sometimes children are passengers. Some potential victims don't drive cars–by choice. They walk, take the bus, and/or ride a bike.

ii) Moreover, if something is intrinsically evil, then consent or benefit doesn't make it licit.

A more rational principle would be to say that we ought to take reasonable precautions to avoid innocent fatalities.

As a friend of mine recently said:

The abortion/birth control ethical analogy is dubious. With abortion, you are committing yourself to a course of action that virtually ensures the destruction of human life (unless the doctor drops dead of a heart attack prior to the procedure, etc.). It's 99.9% certain that an attempted abortion will result in an actual abortion. But in the case of the pill, the percentage is miniscule. Indeed, ovulation is prevented in such an overwhelming majority of cases, that one can't properly be said to "intend" an abortion by way of taking the pill. After all, every time I drive on the freeway, there is a small percentage we'll get hit by a car and die. But it doesn't follow that I intend for that outcome, or that the risk of a fatal accident means freeway driving is immoral. I intentionally drive on the freeway to be sure, but I don't intend for my family to die, even though freeway driving introduces that risk, and it was open to me not to drive on the freeway at all.

(Compare this with a gun: it's so lethal, percentage wise, that you do intend to kill when shooting it at point-blank range. Not so for freeway driving. I think the pill is more properly likened to freeway driving, in which there is a small risk of unintended death, rather than likened to shooting a gun at point-blank range or performing an abortion, in which there is an extraordinary high risk of death, so high that you can be said to intend it if you perform the action in question.)

At the same time, there are different types of contraceptive pills, so Christians need to be aware of the differences.