Arminians at prayer

I’m going to comment on some statements by Roger Olson about an Arminian theology of prayer:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/what-i-admire-about-calvinists/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/more-about-prayer-for-unsaved-loved-ones-and-friends/

A case in point is prayer for friends and loved ones who are not saved. I know many non-Calvinists who pray, and see nothing wrong with praying, that God will simply “save” them. Of course, only a Calvinist (whether by that label or under another one) can reasonably ask God simply to “save” someone.

It’s true that a Calvinist, consistent with his theology, can pray for the lost without all the mental reservations that Arminianism logically requires. A Calvinist has far more freedom in prayer. And that’s one more reason to be a Calvinist.

My experience of non-Calvinist Christians (from membership and leadership in about 12 churches during my lifetime) is that they are not, by and large, theologically trained at all. They have picked up pieces of this and that (theologies) and pasted them together in ways that seem good to them without any real reflection on the outcome (the eclectic worldview, theology that results from that informal process). I’m not saying that doesn’t also happen among Calvinists; I’m just saying it’s not as common IN CALVINIST CHURCHES.

What I long for is a church that knows it is not Calvinist and teaches non-Calvinist theology/doctrine (about God’s sovereignty) and actively helps members and attenders develop spiritual lives that are consistent with non-Calvinist (e.g., Arminian) beliefs.

Recently I visited a church I know is not Calvinist (although there may be a few Calvinists sprinkled among the members) in overall ethos. A mature Christian person gave a “testimony” from the pulpit during the Sunday morning worship service. He concluded with (paraphrasing) “I don’t know why God chose for my mother to have cancer” (but I’m learning to live with that, etc.).

I heard that and subtly looked around to see if anyone whose face I could see registered any kind of surprise or dismay. None. I mentioned it to a few people who are members of the church and who I know are not Calvinists; they didn’t think anything of it. Their response was of the nature of “Well, that’s his belief about God and so who are we to question it?” What I think they really meant was “If that’s what makes him feel comfortable….”

However, I am convinced that if I took that man aside and queried him about God and, say, the holocaust, he would deny divine determinism.

I could give numerous similar examples of what I’m talking about. I’ll mention just one more.

I knew a husband and wife who were most definitely not Calvinists and do not believe in divine determinism as a true account of God’s sovereignty. However, after their son’s death in a car accident, they talked about it as if they were Calvinists! For example, they loved to tell friends how God planned and executed the accident so that their son did not suffer any pain; he was killed instantly.

It’s true that many laymen (and even many pastors) lack theological consistency. That said, Olson’s criticism is quite ironic. He’s accusing many Arminians of failure to be consistently Arminian. Yet Olson’s theology of providence is inconsistent with traditional Arminian theology. When Olson denies that God causes natural evil, or that God is responsible for natural evil, that’s contrary to his exposition of Arminius. And it’s also inconsistent with Charles Wesley. Olson has a revisionist theology of providence.

Olson’s criticism reminds me of atheism. Atheism logically commits the atheist to deny moral norms or mental states (e.g. moral relativism/nihilism, eliminative materialism). But because that’s so unnatural, atheists keep reverting to statements that are inconsistent with their atheism.

Likewise, because Arminian theology is so unnatural in the way it dichotomizes reality, that makes it hard to live by what they say they believe. Arminians keep slipping back into default Calvinism.

Here is how I teach my students. DO NOT wait until your parishioners experience a tragedy to talk with them about God’s sovereignty. If you are a Calvinist (many of them are), teach that to your congregation and clearly communicate its implications for practical life including how to understand evil and innocent suffering. If you are not a Calvinist, figure out your theology of divine sovereignty especially as it relates to salvation, evil and innocent suffering (I’ll be happy to help! :) , and teach your congregants about that. Do not wait until they face horrible tragedy and then try to answer their cries of “Where is God!?”

I agree with him that we shouldn’t wait until tragedy strikes to work out our theology of providence. However, Arminian theology is not a silver bullet to slay questions like “Where is God!?” in the wake of personal tragedy.

Because I like my prayers to be consistent with my beliefs (e.g., about God’s sovereignty and about reality) I never ask God to change the past. I don’t think God can do that. I think it’s even incoherent to talk about changing the past. In that I agree entirely with Calvinist philosopher-theologian Paul Helm.

However, I clearly recall an incident where my mother prayed that God would work it out that whoever found her purse (which was no longer where she lost it) would turn out to be a Christian or at least an honest person and return it to her. Of course, at the point of her prayer, she was asking God to change the past (or assure that something that already happened have happened in a certain way).

I didn’t criticize her; she was my mother and I was pretty young and didn’t want to show her disrespect or get into an argument with her. I let it go. What harm did it do? None.

However, if someone asks my theological opinion about praying for God to change the past, I will kindly tell them I don’t believe in it and explain why. (For example, there’s not a single example in Scripture of it and it’s illogical.)

i) Olson’s objection is confused. He fails to distinguish between changing the past and affecting the past. If God is timeless, then it’s feasible to pray for a past event (if we don’t know the outcome), and have God answer our prayer. God doesn’t have to hear the prayer in our timeframe to prepare the answer, or arrange events accordingly.

ii) On the other hand, many contemporary Arminians reject divine timelessness. In that case, affecting the past through prayer may not be coherent.

Normal language interpretation would seem to me to indicate that asking God to save someone, without any qualifications, is tantamount (whatever is intended) to asking God to do the impossible (from an Arminian perspective).

So, if a person asks me about such praying I will lead off the discussion with “What do you intend for God to do?” If the person says “I am asking God to intervene in their life to force them to repent and believe” I will say “That’s not possible” and explain why. If the person says “I am asking God to bring circumstances into their life to show them their need of him…” I will say “Well, that’s not what I think those words mean, but okay, if that’s what you mean, God knows what you mean and so go ahead and pray that way.”

It seems to me that “God, please save my friend” without qualifications normally means “God, break my friend’s will and force him to repent.” Perhaps not everyone who prays that prayer means that, but that’s what the words alone imply. That’s not consistent with Arminian belief. In my opinion, only a Calvinist (or maybe also a Lutheran) can pray that way consistently.

Olson is assuming that some Arminians pray this way because they haven’t thought through their position on Arminian soteriology and providence. But I think that’s somewhat naïve.

Fact is, Arminians may pray that way because they don’t care about the theological niceties of Arminianism. What they care about is the fate of their loved ones. Where the wellbeing of loved ones is concerned, people can be quite ruthless or unscrupulous. They will do whatever it takes. When push comes to shove, they want God to save their loved one by any means necessary. Abstractions about freewill take a back seat to the urgency and gravity of the situation.

It’s like hiking in the wilderness. Suppose, due to a terrible accident, your friend is pinned under a rock. You don’t want to amputate his arm. But if that’s the only way to save his life, you will take extreme measures.

And my opinion in this case is–it depends on what you mean because God always knows what you mean and you’re praying to God. And if you mean to ask God to violate someone’s free will and force them to be saved, then I don’t think that’s proper. If you mean to ask God to bring circumstances into a person’s life that will probably convince them of their need of salvation, then it’s proper. But why not pray with words that communicate what you mean?

i) I agree with Olson that our prayers should be theologically consistent.

ii) On the other hand, boldness in prayer can be a theological virtue. If Arminian theology causes a Christian to be very hesitant in prayer, to constantly second-guess himself, to suffer from the paralysis of analysis, then so much the worse for Arminianism. If Arminianism puts Christians in a straightjacket when they wish to pray, then that’s just one more strike against Arminian theology.

iii) In addition, it isn’t necessary to censure our prayers. Christian prayer has a built-in filter. This is not like paganism, where, if you inadvertently ask the gods for the wrong thing, they will give you what you ask for, to your detriment.

When we pray to God, we don’t have to phrase our prayer with lots of riders, caveats, and escape clauses, to avoid the danger of praying for the wrong thing. Christian prayer isn’t like an insurance contract, where everything you say has to be hedged about with cautious qualifications.

It’s not like, an hour after you prayed, the horrid realization dawns on you that you left something out, but it’s too late to go back and fix it, because the ink has dried on your signature, and now you’re doomed to get what you ask for. Prayer shouldn’t be a trial by ordeal. We shouldn’t approach God with extreme trepidation, for fear of tiny missteps with calamitous consequences. 

God makes allowance for our flawed prayers. He filters out the detritus. That’s understood going into the prayer. The efficacy of prayer is not dependent on the wisdom of the supplicant, but on the wisdom of the prayer-answering God.

Prayer is like a son asking his dad for something. The son may express himself poorly, but the father knows what his son means and, more importantly, what his son needs.

Before you define things, you have to understand them

Burton (313), I appreciate your question. You asked:

Specifically, on what basis does the Protestant paradigm (Sola Scriptura) objectively distinguish heresy from orthodoxy, and how does it define schism versus unity?

I’m not going to answer it again, but again, in the spirit of Michael Liccione’s search for paradigms, I’ll give you some insight into how I answer it myself. As Sherlock Holmes has famously said, and “Young Spock” famously quoted him, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, HOWEVER IMPROBABLE, must be the truth?”

Quoting Steve Hays:

sola scriptura doesn't exist in a vacuum. It functions in conjunction with a doctrine of God's special providence. It is God's will that his people believe certain things. So, in practice, everything we believe isn't revisable. Providence introduces a principle of stability into doctrine.

Now, we don't know in advance what might be revisable. And each up-and-coming Christian generation must personally appropriate the Christian faith. Everything is subject to reexamination, but that doesn't mean everything is actually revisable–for reexamination can (and often does) confirm or refine preexisting doctrine.

With that in mind, I produced (above) Steve’s short answer on how we effect this re-examination:

Steve Hays has noted, “As a practical matter, no one has explored every nook and cranny [of theology and history]. Rather, everyone hires a guide to scout out the territory and show him the shortcuts…. In that event, you check out the guide rather than the trail to make sure he’s not going to lead you astray”.

Of this quote, Bryan said (#303):

I do agree with the quotation you cite from Hays. No one has investigated every theological and historical nook and cranny. We all rely on guides, to various degrees, and in various areas. There are certain guides you trust more than others, and the same is true for me, that I trust certain guides more than others. But, I think it is safe to assume that we do not trust all the same guides, at least not to the same degree. And when that is the case, how do we resolve our disagreement? Here’s what won’t work. You appeal to your authorities, and I appeal to mine. At that point, we would be at a stalemate, precisely because you don’t accept my authorities, and I don’t accept yours. It would be question begging, at that point, if we each kept simply appealing to our respective authority. So, in such a situation, we must step back and either (a) examine the respective positions, and the evidence and argumentation for each, and/or (b) examine the respective evidence and argumentation for the reliability and authority of the guides to which we are appealing, if we are to make progress toward unity in the truth (i.e. agreement concerning the truth).

If you are looking for “ultimate authority”, let me ask you, how are you progressing on the “filioque / no-filioque” question? For centuries, that question has not been solved, all the while using the “here’s what won’t work” process that Bryan outlined in the bolded section above.

Based on the experiences of the two “one true churches” over the centuries, I decided some time ago at least not to take uncritically everything that they say at face value. In fact, over time, this is where I have come to see the Holmsian “impossibility” and ruled it out. The Roman Catholic Church posits that you must accept, or reject their authority in toto. You can’t just accept the doctrines you’ll accept, and reject the ones you don’t like. It’s all or nothing. So I have rejected it in toto.

Bryan said something a bit different here:

From a Catholic point of view, we never assume as part of our theological methodology that a prima facie contradiction within the Tradition is an actual contradiction. Out of humility toward the Tradition, we instead assume as a working hypothesis that the appearance of a contradiction is due to our own ignorance or misunderstanding. So from a Catholic point of view, if we have at hand an explanation that integrates the apparently conflicting pieces of evidence, we already have a good reason to accept it rather than conclude that there is an actual contradiction.

I will admit up front, I am a bit less sanguine about this process than Bryan is. I wrote yesterday about the start of my process – looking first at the Marian doctrines (themselves seemingly just “appeals to authority”, not in any way based on historical truth or facts. And I continued along that path).

My optimism lies rather within the locus of the following: (a) God exists, and he has a plan; (b) God, being God, has a tremendous ability to communicate with us, and (c) God, being God, also created our ability to receive what God communicates to us. After all, God is God. God speaks “and there was light”, “and there was light. He said, “Let there be an expanse … and it was so”. Things like that. It’s tremendously personal, maybe you’ve experienced it. (And then again, maybe not … not everyone hears from God in this way. You are right to be skeptical that I and others have, and also, it is fair to ask, why are there many others who haven’t?)

But I’m going to give you another reason not to be skeptical, but hopeful. And it is the fact that the Bible is, in spite of all the rampant skepticism, becoming more and more verified and verifiable in its accounting of history. Ancient Egyptian chariots are found under the Red Sea. There is more archaeological evidence than ever for King David and what the Biblical accounts say about him. And Darrell Bock, a New Testament scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary, notes in his 2007 Commentary on Acts notes, “(1) classical historians respect Luke as a historian as they use him (Nobbs 2006) and that (2) a careful look at the details of Acts shows that, where we can check him, Luke is a credible historian” (pg 6).

What does this mean? As Bock also says, one should not read Acts “and rule the role of its key player (God) out of bounds before Luke starts to string together the events and their circumstances in ways that point to God’s or Jesus’s presence and action … “ “This also shows the crucial importance of doing careful work in backgrounds, especially Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. More NT scholars” are benefitting than ever before – and we are benefitting from their labors –at being “equipped in Second Temple Jewish study and classical literature”.

There was a time when “critical scholarship” was (rightly) criticized for being too critical. But what we are seeing is something we would not expect to see: Critical scholarship is confirming, not debunking, the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and the missions of the Apostles to spread that message.

On the other hand, what Critical scholarship is debunking is the historical story that Roman Catholicism had been telling about itself for centuries. I grew up Roman Catholic, and I grew up believing that Peter was the first pope, that there was a second pope, and a third pope, all with the same jurisdictional authority down through time. Recently, I’ve done two studies on this historical topic, one with the moniker House Churches in Ancient Rome and The Nonexistent Early Papacy, and neither of them supports the historical account I learned growing up, not by a long stretch.

One line that I’ve seen Bryan write a lot is that this fact or that fact “is not inconsistent with Roman Catholic doctrine” (and all roads seem to lead to Rome, that is, to the seat of Roman Catholic authority). However, when you add up all the facts (and yes, they can be and have been checked against one another), the prevailing Roman Catholic history about its own authority has come up sorely lacking.

I’ll go you one further. Growing up, I never heard about “the college of apostles, with Peter as its head”. I never heard about (what you hear about all the time today, and that is, a “Petrine ministry”). I’m far more willing to believe that, given some of the things I’ve been writing about, Ut Unum Sint was more a concession to the historical pressures (the discrepancy between Vatican I on the papacy and the historical research of the next century) than it was an overture to ecumenism.

I’m more willing to concede that where there is “consistency” with Roman Catholic doctrine about “the Church” and the actual facts, it is because those who “after the fact” have crafted Roman Catholic doctrine, have been fortunate enough to have the benefits of time and hindsight in crafting their message. More than anything, they had the opportunity to tie up loose ends.

In the end, “truth” has more authority than anything. “What’s true” is normative. “The truth shall set you free”. This truth, however, more than ever, speaks of the genuine truthfulness of both the nation of Israel of the Old Testament, and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ within the context of the world as articulated and understood by the Old Testament scriptures. As Bock said, “we must read Acts open to such a balanced view of its historical approach – in terms of its poetry, history, and cultural setting – as well as to the option of divine activity”.

It’s that “divine activity” that’s the key to everything. Is God real? And is he really working in the pages of Scripture? If so, he will really work with you on that as well.

“What’s true”

Fr Bryan (314) [not Bryan Cross, but someone who is, I believe, an Anglican priest]. Quoting yours truly, he says:

why are you here?

If God doesn’t care if we are systematically correct, and if God doesn’t care that our differences matter, and if it is God’s job to maintain unity and not yours, than why have you been posting on these things here and elsewhere on the internet? Surely you must believe we are either in heresy or schism and that this matters.. How do you make this determination?

There are other categories beside “heresy or schism” and if you looked at my comment above to Burton, I believe that the most important category is “what’s true”. Not “what’s true” in the sense that “after further review”, the Roman Catholic Church can come up with a version of its own doctrine that is “not inconsistent” with history. My overriding interest is to understand the broad sweep of what God is actually doing in history – Old Testament and New Testament (and of course, in Church History as well).

Your statement “If God doesn’t care if we are systematically correct” is actually a bit of a mischaracterization of what I said. While I don’t believe He requires that the individual comes to a systematic theology that’s “infallibly correct”, that’s not to say that there aren’t better or worse theologies, or that we ought not to strive for what’s better. We do need to approach Him in faith, and that does require a substantially correct understanding of who He is and what He has done for us. What I would say to Burton is that even though he has been exploring this for years, God is not pressuring him.

Why have I been posting? Because, while I do have an overriding interest to understand what God is doing in history, I’m convinced that the Roman Catholic “development of” and “accounting of” its own “authority” (specifically the papacy, but other components of it as well) is one of the greatest and most harmful hoaxes in history, and I’m interested in doing what I can do to propagate the truth about such things.

Not that I rely on my own accounting of things. No, I’m tying together threads from historical and theological research. My story very closely approximates Calvin’s account of things in his Institutes, and it incorporates (as others have noted) other “scholarly enthusiasms” that I’ve picked up over the years. The names of the scholars I appreciate include Oscar Cullmann, T.F. Torrance, Peter Lampe, Eamon Duffy, Raymond Brown, John Meier, Larry Hurtado, Thomas Schreiner, G.K. Beale, R.T. France, John Nolland, Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, Michael Horton, Carl Trueman, R.Scott Clark, John Frame, James Anderson, Michael J. Kruger, and yes, there are many others. Not all of these individuals specifically address Roman Catholicism, but some of them do, and where they do, there is a remarkably consistent story. If you’ve been following this thread, you’ve seen hints of it.

Now, to call Roman Catholicism a “hoax” is not to say that all Roman Catholics are going to hell. We have a way of saying this in our circles, and it is: “they’ll get to heaven in spite of their Roman Catholicism, not because of it”.

Regarding the “hoax” factor again, and why I am specifically “here”, I knew Jason Stellman several years ago, and I knew what Bryan was writing about before this site came up. I think Bryan is tremendously gifted, and I know a bit about his background, and not only do I believe he is deceived by the hoax, but that he himself is propagating it. I know too that I myself have “come home to Rome” in the past, and that further down the line, people who at first embrace Rome, do cycle out of it, too.

In terms of “unity”, I think as more study on Scripture and church history becomes generally available, more people will come to a “unity in the truth” such as that embraced by, say James White the Reformed Baptist and Turretinfan, the staunch Presbyterian and even by the Embryo Parson, a Traditional Anglican (who started his journey as Reformed, spent 13 years in Eastern Orthodoxy and now has returned to Traditional Anglicanism), than there is, say, between even two staunch conservative Roman Catholics of the type that James Swan writes about in his series “Blueprint for Anarchy”.

"Genital autonomy"

The ruling of a German court to criminalize circumcision raises a number of issues which modern secular regimes are ill-prepared to sort out:

i) The ruling implicitly criminalizes Judaism. Now perhaps the German court lacks national jurisdiction. I’m not a German lawyer.

ii) The question is not, in the first instance, whether we personally approve of circumcision, but the degree of freedom we allow others.

iii) From a Christian standpoint, circumcision is not a religious duty for Christians. At the same time, we can (and should) defend the right of Jews to practice Judaism.

iv) From what I’ve read, circumcision has medical fringe benefits. But there may be tradeoffs.

v) From what I’ve read, male circumcision isn’t comparable to female circumcision.

vi) People who oppose circumcision don’t seem to oppose tattooing, body-piercing, or cosmetic surgery–so it’s not as if they think the body in its natural condition is sacrosanct.

vii) I don’t think all religions are entitled to equal treatment. And I don’t think parents have carte blanche.

At the same time, parents enjoy default authority to raise their children. There’s a strong presumption of parental authority which should only be overridden in exceptional cases.

Judaism isn’t Islam. And raising boys in Judaism isn’t child abuse.

viii) We can have a reasonable debate over the medial pros and cons of male circumcision. However, like so many “issues,” this is becoming another liberal cause. And it’s being grafted onto a standard liberal paradigm involving “genital autonomy.”

How to become a cardinal

Should Christians pray for the sick?

Should Christians pray for the sick? On the face of it, that’s a ridiculous question to ask. Of course Christians should pray for the sick!

I agree that it’s absurd. Yet it’s absurd in the same way eliminative materialism is absurd.

Depending on the premise, it’s not so absurd. A ridiculous conclusion may follow logically from a ridiculous premise.  If you take physicalism for granted, then eliminative materialism is not absurd–given the premise.

So why do I ask the question? Well, we have Arminians like Roger Olson and Ben Witherington who deny that God directly or indirectly causes natural evils like life-threatening diseases. God is not responsible for cancer or natural disasters. So they say. That’s not his bailiwick.

But in that event, it’s less clear why we should pray to God to heal a sick loved one. If God has nothing to do with illness in the first place, why would we expect him to interfere? On their view, isn’t natural evil part of a closed system? 

Likewise, what if the patient is unconscious? What if the patient can’t consent to our prayer? Should God forcibly heal them? Doesn’t that violate their freedom of choice? He didn’t give them a chance to refuse divine healing. Should God let all comatose patients die?

What if a loved one is mentally ill? In that condition they can’t give informed consent. Should we pray for them? Aren't we imposing on them? 

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims

ECREE emphasizes the common sense notion that the more implausible we initially regard a claim prior to considering the evidence, the greater the evidence we will require to believe the claim.

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/is-extraordinary-claims-require_26.html

So Jeff defines “extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims” as “greater evidence” for “implausible claims.”

It’s how to see how that’s supposed to advance the argument. How does that lend conceptual precision to the issue? How do you quantify “greater evidence” or “implausibility”? Aren’t those utterly vague descriptors?  

God in the dock

Today in the Hague, the International Criminal Court tried, convicted, and sentenced God in absentia for the crimes against humanity; to wit: ordering the circumcision of newborn males.

Its ruling was the outcome of a class-action suit filed by Casanova, Errol Flynn, Bill Clinton, Louis XIV, and King Solomon. Plaintiffs allege circumcision left them with deep feelings of sexual inadequacy. Asked why he had 700 wives and 300 concubines, Solomon said that was a painful, but necessary duty of high office. 

The International Criminal Court issued a bench warrant for God’s arrest, under various aliases (e.g. Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus, Jehovah). Executing the warrant was complicated by the fact that heaven has no extradition treaty. Dog Chapman was retained as a bounty hunter to apprehend Jesus at the Second Coming and conduct him to the Hague to begin serving his sentence.

Because Jesus has a security detail reportedly comprising twelve legions of angels, concerns were expressed that attempting to take him into custody at the Parousia might lead to serious collateral damage, viz. crashing asteroids, boiling oceans.

A delegation consisting of Henry Kissinger, Benedict XVI, Michael Lerner, Alan Dershowitz, Jesse Jackson, Ron Sider, Gregory Boyd, and Kofi Annan was dispatched to open negotiations with heaven, in hopes of talking God into voluntarily turning himself into the authorities. The proffer was written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French, Esperanto, and Ebonics.

Non-Calvinists Have No Basis for Evangelizing the Lost

God's sovereign election is the only basis by which any believer has confidence to evangelize the lost. We do not know who the elect are in this lifetime, but what we do know with certainty is that there are elect out there.

Has God ever revealed to us why we should evangelize the lost? Indeed he has. In Acts 18, Paul was opposed vehemently in his gospel mission. He was about to leave Corinth out of fear and discouragement, but God in a vision at night revealed to Paul a confident truth:

“Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (Acts 18:9–11).

Notice that God did not say, "Paul, there is a possibility that some people might get saved if only they use their free will to cooperate with my grace." Nor does God say, "According to my crystal ball, I foresee that there will be people who will be in the right place at the right time and the right disposition who will get saved." Nor does God say, "there are a lot of people in this city, play the numbers game and you are bound to get some saved." Instead, this is about God's purposes and his people. And this is precisely what gave Paul the confidence to stay in that city for a year in a half.

Why is it that most people do not play the lottery? (forgive my carnal analogy for a moment). It's because they have no guarantee that they will win. Suppose people had the guarantee that if they played the lottery every day for a year, they would eventually win the lottery on a given day. Everyone would play the lottery!

It is roughly the same phenomenon with evangelism. Calvinists have the confidence that God's elect are out there, and they know that if they consistently proclaim the gospel, God's people, the elect, will hear his voice and become saved.

Arminians do not have this foundation or confidence since in their theology it is possible that at this point of time until the Lord comes back, there will not be another soul saved, since for them salvation is not decreed, but ultimately dependent on the enslaved human will. Hence, there lack of foundation for evangelizing the lost.

Believer: Where do you want to find your confidence in evangelism? God's sovereign grace, or the enslaved will of Man?

All of you and none of me! Praise God that you have ordained it to be!

Jeff's sneaky definition

According to the Bayesian interpretation of ECREE, the relevant probabilities are to be understood as epistemic probabilities (as opposed to the classical, logical, or other interpretations of probability). So the objector is correct that the Bayesian interpretation is inherently subjective in the sense that it depends entirely upon what a person knows and believes. So what? It doesn't follow that we can't figure out what are extraordinary claims.

As we shall we see below, we use the same formula for both ordinary and extraordinary claims to determine the evidence required to establish a high final probability for a claim…Notice that the inequalities are the same for both ordinary and extraordinary evidence. This might lead one to wonder, "Then why bother with the ECREE slogan at all?" The answer is this. ECREE emphasizes the common sense notion that the more implausible we initially regard a claim prior to considering the evidence, the greater the evidence we will require to believe the claim.

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/is-extraordinary-claims-require_26.html

So Jeff ultimately defines an “extraordinary” claim as an “implausible” claim. He classifies supernatural claims (e.g. God’s existence, miracles) as “extraordinary” because he views them as implausible.

But, of course, that’s a rigged definition. It begs the question of whether miracles or God’s existence are, in fact, implausible. Yet that’s the very issue in dispute. That’s not something Jeff is entitled to stipulate at the outset.

Only if he already knew that atheism was true or probably true would he be entitled to begin with that presumption. He’s trying to take an illicit intellectual shortcut. Jeff should be fined for trespassing.

I’d also add that there’s nothing philosophically rigorous about calling something “implausible.” That’s hardly a precise definition.

Ecclesial Activism

http://www.proginosko.com/2012/06/ecclesial-activism/

HT: Patrick Chan

Judicial imperialism

One answer to that question is that America is increasingly a government of judges rather than one of laws. The laws passed by Congress or the States are becoming a kind of opening speech for the prosecution to which NGOs reply for the defense and the courts deliver the final verdict. And the result is “laws” bearing a suspicious resemblance to the majority political opinion of Ivy League law schools and the Bar Association.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304008/moral-victory-now-john-osullivan

Authority over all, even authority over history

I’ve been looking into the whole idea of “how tradition functioned in the early church” and I came across this from R.P.C. Hanson (“Tradition in the Early Church”, originally SCM Press, © 1962, reprinted with permission, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, pgs 257-259):

It may perhaps be permissible to state the conviction that the subject of the development of doctrine and of the reformation of doctrine are equally alien to the thought of the early Church, because no writer had occasion to face seriously the question of what is to happen when the obligation to teach sound doctrine and the obligation to preserve the unity of the Church conflict with each other. This is the new problem with which the sixteenth century faced the Christian religion. The history of the early Church does not give an answer to it, any more than the Bible gives and answer to it. We are only justified in drawing the negative conclusion that the experience of the early church gives no justification for assuming the existence of any source of sound doctrine outside the Bible. It may however be profitable to make one or two observations about the contents of tradition as we can observe them in the period which has been under review.

In the first place, it is valuable and interesting that it has been possible to make a rough estimate of the ingredients of the rule of faith. It is clear that the subjects which were destined during the next two centuries to form the material for dogmatic and creedal decisions were already well to the fore in the Church’s consciousness, i.e., Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. The theological interpretation of the eucharist and the seat of authority in the Church were not considered to be part of the rule of faith and clearly did not occupy much attention, but it would be incorrect to say that they were totally beyond the Church’s ken. More remote still was any thought about dogmatic statements concerning the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but even these cannot be said to be something irreconcilable with the interest of the churchmen of these early centuries. Whether these subjects should be made material for dogmas is a question whose answer will depend upon what theory of the development of doctrine we may hold. What does appear to be entirely ruled out by the doctrine of tradition held in the early Church is the possibility of the formation of any new doctrine or dogma dependent upon an historical event not recorded in Scripture. By no sort of theory could this be justified according to the lights of the early Church. If the dogma of the corporeal assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary involves the belief in an historical fact (as well, of course, as the interpretation of fact), in some manner analogous the dependence of the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ upon historical fact, then it can have no support whatever in the tradition of the Church of this period. In fact, it is a fact wholly unknown to the writers of the second and third centuries. Tertullian can write a long treatise of sixty-three chapters On the Resurrection of the Dead, mentioning and discussing the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the raising of Lazarus, the translation without death of Enoch and of Elijah, the returning from the dead of Moses for the Transfiguration, and even the preservation from what was humanly speaking certain death of the three young men in the fiery furnace (of Daniel) and of Jonah in the whale’s belly. He does not once even slightly mention, he does not once even remotely and uncertainly hint at, the resurrection or corporeal assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Tertullian quite clearly, like all his contemporaries and predecessors, had never heard of this story.

This has had some personal meaning for me, because in the early days of my questioning whether or not I could remain a Roman Catholic, this sort of thing was in the front of my mind. True, it is said, “There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture”, and of course it is said, the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to define such a thing.

But it certainly seems legitimate to ask, “in a religious context that’s so obviously dependent on the history and testimony of the earliest church, how does introducing something like this help anyone?” It appears to me to be a chest-beating attempt to make a statement of one’s authority as much as anything else.

In the CCC, a smiley face is put on this “dogma”, but in the dogma itself, Rome bares its teeth:

“It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

That’s the true nature of the “authority” that makes such a definition. The bare teeth under the guise of a sheep’s fleece. None of us should forget it. 

Warming up to Wesleyan theology

Nevertheless, for three reasons, it took me a while to warm up to Wesleyan theology. First, it's just not all that obvious that there is any such thing as Wesleyan theology. I say that as somebody who loves systematic theology, who really enjoys reading treatises on doctrine. The Wesleyan tradition just isn't famous for its systematic theologians. There are some exceptions worth naming (such as W. B. Pope and Thomas Watson), but the fact is that if you make a list of top five or ten theologians, Wesleyans don't make the list. They barely make the top twenty-five list. My list, at least, is dominated (after the patristic and medieval periods) by Reformed and Roman Catholic thinkers of various kinds, who not only do great work, but have also successfully "branded" their style of theology so you can recognize it.

And second, there's the problem of liberalism: the Wesleyan theological traditions have not done a good job of resisting the liberal impulse. Pretty early on in their history, Arminians made common cause with Socinians, lost their grip on all the hard doctrines, and became unusable for a conservative evangelical like me. My supreme theological commitments are to the Trinity and the gospel, so the old Arminian dalliance with anti-trinitarians and atonement revisionists (and later, I would add, to denials of verbal inspiration) is very distasteful to me.

And third, the United Methodist Church is one of those American mainline denominations that isn't very hospitable to conservative evangelicals. There are some good congregations, of course, but the national scene is ugly. I saw right away that it would be hard for me to join that denomination. The Free Methodists do better, and there are plenty of smaller Wesleyan denominations to choose from. But overall, the "where do I go to church" question is a real problem for conservative evangelicals who are Wesleyan.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/06/25/youre-a-calvinist-right/

Good thing Abraham wasn't German

http://www.timesofisrael.com/german-court-prohibits-circumcisions/

Another reason we need more gov't

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/31224633/detail.html

Will the Real Geneva Please Stand Up?

http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/06/25/will-the-real-geneva-please-stand-up/

"Bold, Ambitious, Sloppy and Often Wrong"

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/06/6th-most-unpopular-review-richard.html

"Answers for Jeffery Lowder"

I don't agree with every one of Marshall's answers. However, he's always intelligent, and his exceptionally varied background causes him to see things from angles others might miss:

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/06/answers-for-jeffrey-lowder.html

A Taste of Government-Run Healthcare

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/120951

"Unconditional eternal security"

Over at Arminian Invectives, Ben Henshaw has a running series on “unconditional eternal security.” Oddly enough, he has that filed under “perseverance.”

Problem is, Calvinism doesn’t subscribe to “unconditional eternal security.” There are some antinomian fundamentalists who take that position (e.g. Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Randall Gleason), but that’s in studied contrast to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.

I don’t know where Henshaw came up with the notion that perseverance of the saints is interchangeable with unconditional eternity security. I have noticed that some muddled Arminians detach adjectives from the TULIP acronym and misapply them to other Reformed doctrines. For instance, it’s not uncommon for Arminians to detached “irresistible” from “grace,” where it stands for monergistic regeneration, and then misuse “irresistible” as a general designation for Reformed soteriology.

Perhaps Henshaw is laboring under the misconception that if Reformed election is unconditional, then perseverance is unconditional. If so, his usage is idiosyncratic at best and illogical at worst.

In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.

In Calvinism, “eternal security” is contingent on sanctification, contingent on faith. Good works are a condition of salvation.

Of course, there’s a condition behind the condition. If “eternal security” is conditional on perseverance, then perseverance is conditional on God’s preservation of the elect. And that’s a sure thing.

Perhaps Henshaw is laboring under the misconception that if something is conditional, it must be uncertain.

The ghostly atheist inside the machine

It takes a very good memory to be a consistent atheist. Poor little atheists keep forgetting their lines. That’s because the script of atheism is so unnatural that the atheist invariably slips back into reality despite his best efforts to the contrary. Atheism is studied insanity punctuated by moments of uncontrollable lucidity. 

Jeff Lowder is very disapproving of how atheists are (allegedly) mistreated by theists. But what is an atheist? What is a human being?

Jeff is a physicalist, an atheist, and a Darwinian. So, by his own lights, Jeff is just a mammal with a cerebral cortex.

He disapproves of how atheists are (allegedly) mistreated, but that’s just his brain chemistry acting up. What makes his chemical reactions right and mine wrong?

You see, Jeff has fallen into the trap of imagining that there’s a miniature person inside his skull, sitting in the audience, watching himself on stage. But that’s just an illusion caused by the brain. The brain can’t actually reflect on itself–since there is no self distinct from the brain. Jeff can’t see himself in a mental mirror, for there is no distinction between observer and mirror. That’s the brain playing tricks on itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater#/media/File:Cartesian_Theater.svg

What's in a name?

Jeffery Jay Lowder said...

Aside: I see that Steve Hays has now called our very own Keith Parsons a "militant atheist." Hays has the freedom of speech, of course, to say this. But why say it? I understand that Hays says he is not using the term in a pejorative sense, but it would be nice if theists would stop using the term as a sort of umbrella label for outspoken atheists.

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/comforting-illusions-reply-to-steve.html?showComment=1340224161636#c7600736651119450056

i) At one level, I don’t know why Jeff has such a hang-up about this designation. As I’ve documented, this is a designation which atheists themselves employ as a self-designation. For instance:

Transcript for Richard Dawkins on militant atheism

http://dotsub.com/view/76cca510-aaf5-47cd-a9cb-c0c3afaa74fe/viewTranscript/eng

Even more to the point, Jeff himself promoted this very usage:

LINK: Philip Kitcher on Militant Modern Atheism

Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder . . at 10/19/2011 03:35:00 AM

    From the abstract:

        Militant modern atheism, whose most eloquent champion is Richard Dawkins, provides an effective and necessary critique of fundamentalist forms of religion and their role in political life, both within states and across national boundaries.

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/10/philip-kitcher-on-militant-modern.html

So it looks as if Jeff’s left-hand doesn’t know what his far left-hand is doing.

In addition, Jeff founded the following website:

The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels, Inc.

http://www.infidels.org/infidels/

But historically, “infidel” has negative or pejorative connotations, as a traditional term of abuse for atheists. So Jeff seems to be conflicted.

ii) At another level, despite of his erratic practice, I understand where Jeff is coming from. This is all about PR. As an atheist, he wants to promote a wholesome, clean-cut, boy-next-door image of atheists. Mainstream atheism in the public square. Make it socially acceptable and respectable.

Since, however, I don’t share his self-assessment of atheism, I don’t buy into his PR campaign.

Jeff goes on to say:

As an alternative, I propose any of the following:

* outspoken atheist

* promoter of atheism

* defender of atheism

* (when it applies) atheist philosopher

None of those have the negative connotation of "militant atheist."

In the interests of comity, I’d be happy to meet Jeff halfway. If “militant atheist” has negative connotations, perhaps he’d agree to a neutral-gray synonym like, say, “fist-shaking Godhater.”

But if that's too vanilla for his taste buds, there are other standard synonyms like “heathen,” “scoffer,” “profaner,” “misanthrope,” or “nihilist.”

I’m very flexible.

Is The Secular Outpost a hoax?

 

Jeffery Jay Lowder said...

I take you at your word that you were not using the word "militant" in a pejorative sense. Given that many other theists use that adjective (or "avowed") to describe atheists in a pejorative sense, however, I think it's useful to be aware of that fact when deciding whether to use it yourself.

Related articles:

* Link: The Myth of Militant Atheism

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/comforting-illusions-reply-to-steve.html?showComment=1339345518455#c7174648093386000318

LINK: Philip Kitcher on Militant Modern Atheism

Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder . . at 10/19/2011 03:35:00 AM

From the abstract:

    Militant modern atheism, whose most eloquent champion is Richard Dawkins, provides an effective and necessary critique of fundamentalist forms of religion and their role in political life, both within states and across national boundaries.

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/10/philip-kitcher-on-militant-modern.html

Needless to say, this is all very baffling. On the one hand, there’s a Jeffrey Jay Lowder at The Secular Web who indicates the phrase “militant atheist” is “pejorative.” Indeed, the same comment includes a link to the “myth” of “militant atheism.

On the other hand, there’s another (the same?) Jeffrey Jay Lowder at The Secular Web who plugs an address by Philip Kitcher on “militant atheism.” What is more, Kitcher is quoted as classifying Richard Dawkins as a militant atheist.

How do we reconcile this incongruity?

i) If we take both statements at face value, then Richard Dawkins doesn’t exist. If Dawkins is a militant atheist, and militant atheism is a myth, then Dawkins is a mythical figure, like Hercules or Paul Bunyan.

ii) Perhaps The Secular Outpost was hacked. Since, however, Jeff Lowder is a cybersecurity specialist, I assume The Secular Outpost has a pretty good firewall. So that explanation seems unlikely.

iii) Perhaps The Secular Outpost is a hoax blog. Come of think of it, there is some circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. Take token female contributors who never post anything, viz. Andrea Weisberger, Louise Antony. That would give the hoax a politically correct façade.

Likewise, another contributor (Taner Edis) is ostensibly an atheist, yet he’s constantly defending Islam against secular critics like Sam Harris. But if Edis were a real person, or a real atheist, we wouldn’t expect him to stick up for Islam and attack secular critics of Islam.

Finally, it’s hard to believe that Keith Parsons is real. I mean, how plausible is it that a philosophy prof. with two earned doctorates would rely on hacks like John Spong and George Wells?

iv) This, in turn, raises the question of whether Jeff Lowder is a real person. On the one hand, I distinctly remember Jeff from college. I attended his Sceptics Anonymous cadre.

But perhaps that wasn’t the real Jeff. Maybe the “Jeff Lowder” I saw was a surgically altered double. Maybe the real Jeff is a Christian apologist whom PZ Myers abducted and imprisoned in his basement.

v) For that matter, even though I seem to remember seeing Jeff on multiple occasions, atheists assure us that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. So perhaps I’m misremembering.

vi) I could try to confirm Jeff Lowder sightings by checking my recollections against the recollections of Don Peter and Jon Sween. But atheists might chalk that up to a mass hallucination.

vii) And, of course, Don Peter and Jon Sween are both Christian, so that would make them biased reporters.

viii) Finally, it’s possible that I’m trapped in the Matrix. Jeff Lower is a computer-simulated character. As Sherlock Holmes used to say, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

Oreo Arminians

In Roger Olson's experience, many non-Calvinists are Arminian on the outside, but Calvinist on the inside. On paper they're Arminian, but when crunch time comes, they're functional Calvinists:


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/what-i-admire-about-calvinists/

The Apocrypha

http://michaeljkruger.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-6-in-the-early-stages-apocryphal-books-were-as-popular-as-the-canonical-books/

"Apolitical evangelicalism"

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/06/a_strange_variety_of_apolitica.html

Animal rights and animal brights

PETA opposes zoos because cages and cramped enclosures at zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs. The zoo community regards the animals it keeps as commodities, and animals are regularly bought, sold, borrowed, and traded without any regard for established relationships.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/zoos.aspx

Notice how animal rights activists arrogantly look down on nonhuman animals. Notice how they underestimate the superior intelligence of nonhuman animals.

It doesn’t even occur to them that animals hoodwink humans into building zoos for them. At the risk of stating the obvious, zoo exhibits permit animals to study humans in their natural urban habitat. The humans stupidly think they are going there to observe the animals, but, of course, that’s just a clever ruse which animals use to lure their human test subjects into the exhibit.

Animalian trappers position overcooked, overpriced junk food at strategically placed concession stands as bait to snooker unsuspecting humans into visiting zoos, where animals can study human social interaction.

Likewise, killer whales pretend to let humans teach them stupid animals tricks, but, of course, the human “trainer” is really a guinea pig in the orca’s experiment. It’s a way orcas administer IQ tests to humans. Needless to say, humans rank pretty low on the zoological bell-curve.

bubble boy

Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder . . at 6/10/2012 02:35:00 AM

 (As an aside, why is it common practice to refer to some atheists as "militant" or "avowed," but one rarely, if ever, sees those adjectives in front of "Christian," "Muslim," "Jew," or even "theist"?)

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/comforting-illusions-reply-to-steve.html

militant muslim – Google search

About 13,500,000 results (0.07 seconds)

Searches related to militant muslim

militant islam

militant islamist ideology

Clarification on "unity"

Larry Hurtado has published an article on the general topic of Christian unity as an eschatological work of God. The upshot is that we are expected to continue to "speak the truth in love" -- not to give way on the truth out of some sort of false hope that fudging on the truth will somehow bring about the unity that's called for. The "unity", again, is God's eschatological work.

Hurtado continues:

But, perhaps especially in the West, and particularly since the Reformation, Christians have tended to treat diversity as a problem, a threat, and an obstacle to unity. Indeed, the common notion has been that Christian unity depends on agreement, especially in doctrine and church polity. So the question for us is whether this anxiety about diversity is justified, and whether it may bring the danger of a narrowness that makes us unfaithful to the NT and the ‘proto-orthodox’ circles from which we would like to trace our religious derivation. We might, then, ask whether there are biblical resources for handling diversity positively. In the following discussion, I focus on a key NT passage, proposing that it provides us with instruction in the matter of unity and diversity. Indeed, I propose that this text challenges the traditional fixation with doctrinal agreement as the key basis for Christian unity, and lays out an approach that is very much worth considering.

EPHESIANS 4:1–16 AND CHRISTIAN UNITY
The Epistle to the Ephesians is traditionally considered one of the most impressive presentations of Christian faith in the NT. One of the themes of the epistle seems to be unification. In 1:9–10, the author says that God’s revealed purpose is ‘to unite all things’ in Christ. In 2:11–22, the author celebrates the work of Christ in uniting Gentiles and Jews, having ‘broken down the dividing wall of hostility’, reconciling both ‘to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing hostility to an end’ (vv. 14–16). In the passage I focus on here, 4:1–24, we have more direct teaching about Christian unity in diversity. It is teaching that seems, however, not to have had its due impact in Christian history.

Let us begin by noting the exhortations that commence the passage. These are introduced with wording intended to secure the most respectful regard for them. The voice of the apostle Paul speaks here, portrayed as ‘a prisoner for the Lord’, who begs [parakalō] readers to ‘walk worthily of the calling to which you were called’ (v. 1). More specifically, this is to involve acting ‘with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (vv. 2–3).

My first observation is that such exhortations are hardly necessary if the pre-condition for fellowship is complete agreement. It is scarcely necessary for me to exercise ‘forbearance’ with anyone intelligent enough to agree with my views. Forbearance is called for only with those who are (from my viewpoint) perverse enough to take another view of the matter! So immediately these exhortations seem clearly intended for situations of Christian diversity. Indeed, they are only applicable in these situations.

I observe further that the point of the behaviour exhorted here is to ‘maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (v. 3). I emphasize that it is ‘the bond of peace’, not a bond of doctrinal agreement. Moreover, the unity (henotēta) called for is ‘unity of the Spirit’. The Spirit is divine gift, God’s own empowerment, not a force of human devising or effort. As the following verses indicate, the bases of Christian unity lie in the unity of God and God’s actions. Believers are one (whether they act accordingly or not) because ‘there is one body, one Spirit... one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all’ (vv. 4–6). In short, the expression of Christian unity means to live out, to actualize, the unity that is based in God. Believers are one in God and Christ; the question is whether we can find the readiness to reflect that in our engagement with one another.

Next, the author celebrates the richness and diversity of the grace that has been given to believers: ‘Grace given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift’ (v. 7). Appropriating a statement from Psalm 68:19, the author portrays the ascended Christ as bestowing gifts, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers, these intended to equip the larger body of believers (‘the saints’) ‘for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ’ (vv. 11–12). Neither here nor in other NT passages do we have a complete list of Christ’s gifts, and those mentioned here should be taken as illustrative and selected to fit the focus here on the formation and equipment of the body of believers for ministry.

In v. 13, we come to the statement of the eschatological goal in light of which Christian life and the work of all those varied gifted individuals are to be conducted. It is pretty clear that v. 13 looks ahead to the future consummation of God’s plan, which is characterized here grandly as attaining ‘the unity of the faith and knowledge [henotēta tēs pisteōs kai tēs epignōseōs] of the Son of God, to maturity, the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’. I want to underscore the observation that ‘unity of the faith’ is part of the eschatological consummation, something to hope for and expect, as a corollary of the fullness of God’s eschatological revelation, when we ‘shall understand fully even as we have been fully understood’ (adapting slightly the wording of 1 Cor. 13:12). That is, ‘unity of the faith’ is not presented here as something that can be devised by councils and doctrinal committees, but is instead a component of the eschatological resolution of all ambiguities in the bright light of God’s full revelation and final victory. If unity of the faith were something that we could achieve, it is difficult to see why the text here portrays it as an eschatological condition.

Also, note the comparison of this ‘unity of the faith’ with ‘the unity of the Spirit’ mentioned in v. 3. ‘Unity of the Spirit’ (i.e., a unity that flows from the Spirit’s enablement and that reflects the essential oneness of God) is to be maintained ‘in the bond of peace’, and is a present responsibility to which readers are exhorted. We are urged to maintain ‘unity of the Spirit’, but we can only await ‘unity of the faith’. The latter is posed as a condition that may be attained at some indefinite future point (as connoted by the subjunctive verb, mechri katantēsōmen, v. 13).

I highlight the sequence of these two kinds of unity. ‘Unity of the Spirit’ is for the present; it is not conditional upon and does not presuppose ‘unity of the faith’. ‘Unity of the Spirit’ is to be expressed now, in the absence of ‘unity of the faith’! In the history of Christianity, however, unity of doctrine has typically been seen as the requisite condition for ecclesial unity, for worshipping together, for truly recognizing one another fully as fellow Christians. That is, Christian unity has tended to be seen as ‘unity of the faith’, agreement in Christian teaching. And differences of doctrine have tended to be treated a justification for refusing in various ways to treat those with whom we differ as full siblings in God.

We have, quite simply, tended to reverse the clear sequence of this passage. We have made agreement in doctrine a requirement for Christian unity, and we have used differences as a justification for disunity, an excuse to ignore the clear exhortation to ‘maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’. But ‘unity of the Spirit’ is to be maintained ‘in the bond of peace’, which means choosing not to go to war over differences, not to attack and inflict the harm of denying Christian fellowship upon those with whom we differ.

We have invested enormous efforts and resources in polemics, defending our views and attacking those of other Christians. In kinder moments, we have established commissions and task forces to promote serious discussion of our differences, all with the aim of seeing whether we can come to agreement in matters of difference, and in the assumption that such agreement is a necessary pre-condition for full Christian fellowship. I propose that in polemics and such kinder deliberations we have ignored the thrust of passages such as the one I have focused on here. We have ignored the clear eschatological framework of salvation and revelation, in which the fullness of both are awaited from God and are not ours to construct. We have ignored the clear exhortations to engage our differences ‘in the bond of peace’ and with an eagerness to ‘maintain the unity of the Spirit’, groundlessly using our differences as justification for our disobedience to Scripture.

Resources on Roman Catholicism

It seems to me that most Protestants, knowing of Roman Catholicism, rightly put it in a box, and say “don’t go there”. However, the contents of that box seem to fade out of mind, until such times as the recent dual conversions of WSC grads Jason Stellman and Joshua Lim make the news. At that point, Protestants are a bit surprised, and tend to agree, “it’s time to understand these issues again”.

In that spirit, a number of writers have put together “Resources on Roman Catholicism” for those who are interested in “getting up to speed”. Here are a few:

Jason Engwer

James Swan

Scott Clark

I’m sure there is some overlap in these, but 2000 years-worth of history and doctrine provide for fantastically complex interactions, and for anyone who is curious about how these things go over time, you’ll find an excellent overview here.

(Also, I’m in an ongoing discussion over at “Called to Communion”, for anyone who is interested). 

The argument from miracles

www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5230S.pdf

What Interests Us And What Bores Us

Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason?

http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012.html?print=1

Dropping out of the race just before the finish line

A cautionary tale:

A hospice counselor asked Tish for help with Ruth, who had only a few weeks to live and who was extremely anxious and increasingly agitated. Her Christian faith, which had been a hugely meaningful part of her life since childhood had, in her words, “just up and disappeared.” Nothing made sense anymore. She was worried sick over what to say to her pastor of many years, and she was angry that now, just now, when she really needed it, her religious faith had vanished.

She had loved God and believed the stories in the Bible…But now, all of a sudden, her religious beliefs had evaporated and she was beside herself. How could she die without God? Was there no heaven after all?

After a pause, Tish asked her if she could remember what was happening at the time she first noticed her faith changing. Ruth said she had been reading some books on Buddhist spirituality and one in particular by a “guru type,” as she described him. “All of a sudden it didn’t seem possible that God could be captured in any earthly frame of reference…I’ve lost it all.”

K. Bulkeley & P. Bulkley Dreaming Beyond Death (Beacon Press 2006), 66-67.

Elvish environmental impact statement

As we know, only backward, barbarous, primitive people still entertain superstitious beliefs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/international/europe/13elves.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Is "militant atheism" a myth?

Is "militant atheism" a myth or fantasy?

Sic:

LINK: The Myth of Militant Atheism

Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder . . at 10/28/2011 07:00:00 PM

"[W]hile millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. In all of American history, it is doubtful that any person has ever been killed in the name of atheism. In fact, it would be difficult to find evidence that any American has ever even been harmed in the name of atheism. It just does not happen, because the notion of "militant atheism" is entirely fantasy."

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/10/link-myth-of-militant-atheism.html

Et non:

Free Podcast: “Militant Modern Atheism”

The 2010 Society for Applied Philosophy Annual Lecture “Militant Modern Atheism” was delivered by Professor Philip Kitcher (John Dewey Professor of Philosophy and James R. Barker Professor of Contemporary Civilization, Columbia University) on Friday 19 March 2010.

http://philosophy-compass.com/2010/11/04/militant-modern-atheism/

Transcript for Richard Dawkins on militant atheism

http://dotsub.com/view/76cca510-aaf5-47cd-a9cb-c0c3afaa74fe/viewTranscript/eng 

To Michael Liccione on “Interpretive Paradigms”

I have posted the following over at Called to Communion as a response to Michael Liccione, #275. (My comment has been accepted as comments 287 and 288 beginning at this link for those who want to follow the discussion over there):

Rather than repeat myself here, I refer you to sections IV and V of the essay I wrote for CTC last year. The upshot of my argument was that we're dealing here with a clash of interpretive paradigms, such that the question which paradigm is more reasonable for the purpose of presenting divine revelation has to be discussed before we get into any particular set of exegetical and historical details. Present and intepret all the details of that sort you want--until you address that prior philosophical question, nothing that you or any other scholar say can rise beyond the level of opinion, and thus cannot clearly present divine revelation for the assent of faith.

Regarding your essay, I have to say that this very much strikes me as an exercise by a kid who has to write the rules of the game so that (a) the identity of the winner is never in doubt, and (b) the winner will always be the kid himself.

This “paradigm” is not something that is new to yourself (although you frame it in different words), it was actually was noticed by Turretin, who (vol 3, page 2), actually seemed to complain that his opponents would not actually discuss the facts, but “to this day … (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of the church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they dispose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various and most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine”.

The Roman claim to authority is (and today is very much used as) an attempt, with one statement, to avoid argumentation on any other point of Scripture or doctrine.

That is, the argument from Rome’s side never is, “the doctrine is (a) because the Scripture says (a)”. The argument from Rome’s side is always “the doctrine is (b) even though the Scripture says (a) because ‘the Church’ has the ‘interpretive authority’ to make it (b)”.

I’ve commented a number of times where I think this impulse comes from: it is clearly recognizable in Imperial [secular, “not the church”] Rome, and it exists outside of what you think might be included in the “interpretive paradigm”:

Emperor Worship and the Ancient Roman Mindset (1)

Augustus Caeser, pontifex maximus, becomes a god

Caesar Worship and Christian Art

These are not in any particular order, and of course, “correlation does not imply causation”. It’s true that I have not yet “close the loop” on that particular thought, but I don’t think it’s a hard argument to make.

For example, it is clear that the Roman church [Pope Leo 1, specifically] used Roman law to bolster its own position, in defining itself in the fourth and fifth centuries (such “definitions” then being “reading back into” earlier statements about Rome, bishops of Rome, Peter, etc”, and being the source of Roman Catholic teaching about “divine institution” of itself. In fact, it’s no secret that Pope Leo I relied on Roman adoption law to make himself not just “a successor of” but the “heir” of Peter and thus giving himself “the same rights, authority and obligations as the one whom he replaced”. Now, to my mind, that is a thing that must be argued for on two levels: first, that Leo was anything near to being an “heir” to Peter, and second, whether God subjects himself and his kingdom to ancient Roman adoption laws. But that is for another day.

At any rate, I hope these blog posts of mine will give you some idea of why I tend to distrust (and in fact be dismissive of) your (and Rome’s) “interpretive paradigm”.

* * *

In your IP, here is your criterion: something that …

reliably identify[ies] the formal, proximate object of faith as distinct from human opinion.

you carefully avoid using the word “infallible” here, so that you avoid using the conclusion within the premise, but it is clear from the way that you posit this, that is the answer you are looking for.

However, your choice of “leaving it to mere human opinion about how to interpret sources that have been alleged to transmit divine revelation”, or choosing the method that you eventually adopt, is a false dilemma. It is not “either-or” (either “an infallible interpreter” or “mere human opinion”).

First, Scripture itself defines itself as what is “the formal, proximate object of faith”, or in the words of Bavinck’s editors (Vol 1, pg 354), that “Scripture does not [merely] give us data to interpret; it is itself the interpretation of reality.” Consider Jesus’s words in Luke 16:29: ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ I could bring much more than this, but this illustrates that the concept is in Scripture: the words of the Scriptures themselves are “the formal, proximate object of faith”.

This is why Kruger’s work is so key at this point in the discussion, in clarifying that (contra Roman Catholic and other claims) Protestants are warranted, justified in their acceptance that the 27-book volume of the New Testament is the extent and limit of “divine revelation” we have today. He takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that “sola scriptura is self-defeating”.

His work tremendously bolsters Protestant epistemological claims in this area of “interpretive paradigms”. [Once you have read his reasons for this, and I’m not going to outline them here, you should feel free to argue with the specific arguments he makes. But I don’t think any Roman Catholic, from this time forward, should be able to get away with the facile statement “Sola scriptura is self-defeating”, without tackling Kruger’s specific and individual arguments].

The Protestant says, “Lord, you alone are my portion and my cup; you make my lot secure” (Psalm 16). Note that this trust, too, is fundamental to the Protestant IP. Once one’s faith in the “Lord” “alone” is established as the “formal principle” by which the Protestant (not just his “understanding”, but the Protestant in his own person) is secure, then is the understanding that “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (Psalm 119).

“Scripture interprets Scripture”, as the saying goes. [In this link, I show how Irenaeus himself does not hold to the Michael Liccione view of “IP”, but the Protestant view: “All Scripture, given to us by God, will be found consistent. The parables will agree with the clear statements and the clear passages will explain the parables. Through the polyphony of the texts a single harmonious melody will sound in us, praising in hymns the God who made everything.”

This comports with Old Testament notions of Authority, too. God does not give the Israelites a Bible and then say “wait for someone to come along who can identify the formal, proximate object of faith as distinct from human opinion”. He says, “Get the assembly of the people together (“the church”) and read the law to them”. God himself plays an active role in this process. He says, “my word shall not return to me void”. Remember Psalm 16: God himself makes our lot secure.

In the Old Testament, God’s word is “the formal, proximate object of faith”. No “interpretation” was required. It’s true, Moses and others were called upon to “judge” in specific instances. And this occurred in the Old Testament, and the Reformers allowed, too, that the church would have “ministerial authority” to judge in disputes.

But this relates to the very question that was brought up in my previous comment:

while Roman Catholicism claims that the “successors” after the apostles have some very similar authority vis-à-vis the message [of the Gospel, i.e., “interpretive” authority], I am rather saying is that those who followed the apostles had a somewhat (in fact, a good deal reduced authority vis-à-vis “the message]. The difference is characterized “ministerial” vs “magisterial”, and we can talk about that at another point.

For Protestants, the “authority” that the church has is the kind of authority that Moses and the judges of Israel held in the Old Testament.

* * *

You then posit the question:

the question fairly arises: How to explain the fact that many baptized, churchgoing people don’t agree about what the plain sense of Scripture is, or even that it’s always and necessarily inerrant even when agreed to be plain? If the proximate, formal object of faith can be clearly identified by a rationally unassailable set of inferences from the pertinent early sources, the primary one of which is assumed to be inerrant, does that tell us that those who don’t find that set rationally unassailable are either unlearned or willfully irrational?

This too is a false dilemma, unless you want to call God himself “either unlearned or willfully irrational” in setting up the paradigm he set up with Moses and the Israelites. God posits his own word as “plain”.

Your illustration from Anthony Lane presents itself as an instance of Judges 21:25: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”.

But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that “the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.” By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey,” Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45).

But this, too, is a false dilemma. First, in the Old Testament, God himself permitted such a situation to occur; in this case, the Roman paradigm is guilty of exceeding what God has done with regard to “interpretive paradigms”. Second, as Steven Wedgeworth has argued (and I’ve argued similarly),

The evangelical doctrine of the universal priesthood has become merely nominal in many Reformed churches, which is why a number of Reformed people are predisposed to admiration of Rome. We need to reaffirm this fundamental doctrine, and its corollary of the representative character of the ministry. We must become more truly Calvinian on this score, by becoming more “Lutheran” and less clericalist. We should reject false definitions of the unity of the church, and recognize its actual unity on the ground, which underlies all the legitimate congregational forms and their modes of denominational association. We must also recognize the liberty of the Christian people to freely gather around the Word as center, without artificial ecclesial borders being enforced and policed by a clergy claiming a divine right authority. If the Smith family has good reason to be at St. Adiaphoron Lutheran Church, and their neighbors the Jones family has good reason to be at Putting Green Presbyterian across the street from it, so far from being a scandal, this is actually a fine thing.

Where all of this practically takes us is what many political scientists and historians have described as the culture of persuasion. We do not look to a political institution or other coercive power to artificially provide unity and certainty. There is no magic “key” to unity in external diversity. Rather, we respect the rights of conscience and seek to persuade others through the right use of reason and Biblical exegesis, confident that freedom and charity lead to the only unity worth having.