http://www.alankurschner.com/2013/07/31/update-on-brannon-howses-threat-to-sue-regarding-the-video-critique-of-jimmy-deyoung/
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
The Italian Job
I'm going to comment on Michael Heiser's theory of inspiration. I'm going to quote some representative statements from his series, then respond.
I’ve been thinking about inerrancy a good bit lately–not whether I want to surrender it, or whether it’s a term that has any value or not. My thoughts have focused on the Peter Enns dismissal from Westminster. I think they made the wrong decision, and the reasoning behind the decision has troubled me as to the state of clear thinking in a theological institution I have admired for a long time. You may or may not be familiar with Enns or his dismissal or its circumstances, so I don’t want this discussion to be about Peter. That said, his book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (which led to his dismissal) raised some very important issues for any coherent articulation of inspiration and inerrancy. I think he was doing the Church a great service. It’s really been appalling to see how the side opposite Enns seems to be painfully unaware of the reality of the issues the book raises and has retreated to 17th century articulations of inerrancy as authoritative, or to more recent articulations produced by scholars who seem under-informed (i.e., they aren’t in the field of OT, the ANE, and Semitics) as to what Enns is trying to address. Like me, Peter’s field is OT and ancient Near East (his PhD is from Harvard).
i) In one respect I agree with Heiser. I think it's best not to frame the issue in terms of the Westminster Confession. The Westminster Divines weren't prophets. They couldn't foresee certain modern challenges. So the Westminster Confession isn't designed to address certain modern challenges.
It would be better if confessional seminaries supplemented their traditional doctrinal standards with modern statements that specifically address modern challenges.
ii) However, Enns had no cause for complaint. He sought employment at a confessional seminary. He knew that going in. He sought tenure with eyes wide open. Those were the terms of his employment. So the administration has every right to fire him if he flouts the doctrinal standards of his institution.
iii) The classic Protestant doctrine of inspiration is based on the self-witness of Scripture. That can't be sidelined by modern challenges.
iv) Enns took an interdisciplinary approach. He didn't confine himself to the OT. He also discusses apostolic exegesis. So NT scholars (e.g. Beale, Carson, Poythress) are qualified to challenge his analysis.
Likewise, Enns proposed an "incarnational" model of inspiration. However, That's an issue of philosophical theology. So that makes some Christian philosophers and theologians (e.g. Frame, Helm) qualified to challenge his analysis.
Finally, Heiser's statement is dated. At the time of writing, OT scholars hadn't weighed in, but several years later, his position has been challenged by OT scholars like John Currid, Noel Weeks, and Bruce Waltke.
Just as no one would argue God whispered which books were “in” to those people debating such a thing, we do not need God to whisper each word into the ear or mind of the Scripture authors. There is no need for dictation or automatic writing, any more than there was a need to dictate the canon list or seize the minds of those making such decisions. It was providence.
The next obvious question is “How well did the process work?” This is another way of asking whether God preserved the human agents from making any mistakes. In the case of the canon, mistakes would mean not recognizing a book that ought to have been recognized. I exclude the notion in that statement that something got in that shouldn’t be in. That is theoretically possible, but in my mind highly unlikely, especially for the Protestant evangelicals that I’m guessing make up most or all of my readership. Evangelicalism has a minimalist canon – the smallest of the lists that emerged in any widespread Christian tradition, so the problem becomes whether something that ought to be in was excluded in what has become the evangelical Protestant Bible. Moving back to the inspiration issue, mistakes would mean errors in the text. This brings us full circle back to 2 Tim. 3:17.
That analogy is equivocal. Indeed, Heiser himself seems to sensitive to the equivocation. If the analogy were tight, it would go something like this:
If God could providentially prevent the church from making mistakes in which books to canonize, God could providentially prevent Bible writers from making mistakes.
The problem with that analogy is that Heiser thinks Bible writers did make mistakes. So the analogy is disanalogous.
Let’s face it – once God made the decision to use people to produce Scripture rather than dictate content to us that would have been mostly incomprehensible to our puny minds, he had chosen a very limited resource. I imagine God looking down and shaking his head as it were, knowing the only way to communicate with us would be to use us to that end. God had specific purposes in mind and more or less said “Well, I’ll prompt them with my Spirit, other believers, and general providential intervention to get them to write down a record of my dealings with humanity, my purposes, who I am and what I’m like, how they can know me and be forgiven for their sin, how I came to them in human form and then the incarnate Son. . .” etc., etc. “I’ll make sure they get across what I want them to get across, not only for them but for all those who will follow, especially those who believe.” God knew that letting men do this would be ugly (relatively speaking, with respect to his perfection) – that they’d bring their pre-scientific ignorance to the table, along with a specific, localized cultural perspective. But hey, that’s what he chose to work with. What else would they be?
i) What content does Heiser think would be incomprehensible to our puny minds?
ii) Heiser constantly uses "dictation" as his foil, but he fails to define what he means by that.
iii) Why does he assume the alternative to "dictation" is accommodating prescientific ignorance?
1. While God certainly knows how to use human language, does the human language in question have the vocabulary that would allow God to communicate scientific truths to the original recipients? Could God have communicated full, precise scientific information about, say, how human reproduction works (cf. the 1 Cor 11 article here, where Paul connects this to women’s hair; and the information has to be full and precise, lest God accommodate himself to humans!). So . . . what are the ancient Greek words for: zygote, oocyte, chromosome, DNA, etc.? It’s about an ancient language being insufficient for a host of scientific issues, not God’s ability.2. While God certainly knows how to use human language, do the human recipients have the capability to understand what is being said? Let’s say there was a way for God to communicate 20th and 21st century science in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (think about that statement for a moment and ask yourself if you really want to side with Grudem here). Let’s say God uses those words – and he would certainly be capable if those words existed in the languages – and really spells out exactly how the cosmos was created (never mind the fact that the writers wouldn’t be aware of what a cosmos is) and where babies come from (it isn’t implanting a seed in a woman for it to grow – we need genetics here).
Why does Heiser think Paul's argument requires "full, precise scientific information" to go through? Why assume Paul's argument can't be based on general truths about human procreation? In addition, it's possible to simplify scientific truths without misrepresenting scientific truths. A statement can be accurate even if it leaves out many technical details.
This example is both simple and inescapable. Here are the bare facts:(1) We do indeed have synoptic gospels that have conversations between Jesus, the disciples, and other people.(2) The synoptic accounts frequently disagree as to the precise wording of the dialogue in those accounts. They cannot all reflect the ACTUAL “in real time” words of the people who speak them, since “in real time” people uttered only one set of words in any given conversation.
This equivocates over what it means to "disagree." Does he mean they use different words, or does he mean they are contradictory? For instance, two sentences can use different words, but share the same meaning because they employ synonyms.
Likewise, one writer might paraphrase a conversation while other writer might quote verbatim. But both could be accurate records at the level of meaning.
(3) No one was around in the first century with a tape recorder taping the conversations. As such, the gospel writers are writing down their recollections of the dialogue.
That's misleading. It's true that gospel writers relied on their memories. However, inspiration refreshed their memories (Jn 14:26). So Heiser erects a false dichotomy between inspiration and memory, as if unaided memory was all they had to go by.
(4) The Spirit cannot be dictating the words of the dialogue since the dialogue disagrees. Aside from the fact that we’d have a schizophrenic Spirit if we insisted on the Spirit being the originator of divergent utterances in dialogue (this is yet another reason to see humans as the immediate source of the words), since the conversations occurred once in real time, there is only ONE set of precisely correct utterances that were uttered. There cannot be three, and so we cannot say the Spirit is whispering the EXACT words that were uttered into the ear or mind of EACH author.
i) I don't subscribe to the dictation theory of inspiration, but as long as critics treat it as a limiting case of verbal inspiration, let's play along with that theory for the sake of argument. It would be possible for God to dictate verbally different accounts of the same event. For instance, the same human writer may give variant descriptions of the same event. To take one example, Ruskin had an experience in Siena that left a lasting impression on his mind. He wrote about it on at least three different occasions:
#1 The fireflies are almost awful in the twilight, as bright as candles, flying in and out of the dark cypresses.
#2 While in Siena, in a hill district, has at this season a climate like the loveliest and purest English sumer, with only the somewhat, to me, awful addition of fireflies innumerable, which, as soon as the sunset is fairly passed into twilight, light up the dark ilex groves with flitting torches or at least, lights as large as candles, and in the sky, larger than the stars. We got to Siena in a heavy thunderstorm of sheet-lightning in a quiet evening, and the incessant flashes and showers of fireflies between, made the whole scene look anything rather than celestial.
#3 Fonte Branda I last saw with Charles Norton, under the same arches where Dante saw it. We drank of it together, and walked together that evening on the hills above, where the fireflies among the scented thickets shone fitfully in the still undarkened air. How they shone! moving like fine-broken starlight through the purple leaves. How they shone! through the sunset that faded into thunderous night as I entered Siena three days before, the white edges of the mountainous clouds still lighted from the west, and the openly golden sky calm behind the Gate of Siena's heart, with its still golden words, "Cor magis tibia Sena pandit," and the fireflies everywhere in sky and cloud rising and falling, mixed with the lightning, and more intense than the stars.
ii) Heiser has a deficient concept of truth. A true description needn't use the same words. There's a one-to-many relation between words and meaning. Look at Ruskin's description of the Sienese fireflies. He gives us three verbally different accounts of what happened, yet these can all be true. Indeed, Ruskin was a stickler for detail. He had a keen eye, and a precise vocabulary.
(5) All the above can apply to ANY conversation or dialogue in the Bible. No one recorded it. We are only brought to this realization (most clearly) when we have synoptic accounts, so I use them as illustration.
God has a mental record of everything everyone ever said (even before they said it). If need be, God can reveal that to the narrator.
What this means is that we have certain possibilities when it comes to the dialogue of the gospels:(1) ONE of the gospel writers got every word exactly correct – he has recorded each and every word as they were uttered in real time.(2) NONE of the gospels got every word right. That is, ALL of the dialogue in the gospels or any given passage may be simply recalled by the writer (in different ways) in a manner sufficient (to God) for giving us a faithful representation of a conversation that occurred. This is sort of “small f” fiction – since each writer is using whatever words that seemed best to communicate the conversation.
It is not "fictitious" to convey the sense of what was said, even if you use different words. Heiser's characterization is tendentious.
And so we have the dilemma. I put the question this way: Is there a coherent explanation of how God did not dictate the Scriptures or seize the mind of the human author, but where the words are produced only by God so that the human writers are in no to be viewed as the source of the writing that was produced? Put another way, How can you deny anthropopneustos, that humans are responsible for what is produced, while at the same time avoiding both dictation and automatic writing?
i) Well, that's a straw man. classic exponents of verbal inspiration, like Warfield, don't take the position that the words of Scripture were "only" produced by God.
ii) God can cause, determine, or predetermine what words a Bible writer through predestination and providence. At one level, God has a "script" for whatever happens. At another level, God implements that script in time and space.
iii) God created the Bible writer by creating a system of second causes. God creates the Bible writer's historical situation by prearranging the course of history. All of his experiences are part of God's master plan. What the writer does is the effect of those often subliminal influences.
Let's take an illustration: In The Italian Job, Lyle hacks into the traffic light system to reroute the armored car. The driver is unaware of the fact that he's being guided to go wherever Lyle redirects him to go. The driver makes conscious decisions, based on the available forced options.
1. The term theopneustos refers to the IMMEDIATE source of the Scriptures – and so we have God breathing out the Scriptures directly to the writers. How did he do that? Did it happen as some sort of audible “whisper in the ear,” or did God implant each word into the head / mind of the author? The former is quite clearly dictation. The latter is very close to that — Is there a difference between aural and mental dictation? Whether you want to call it dictation or not, you have God PROVIDING each word; he is the immediate source of each word. This is probably where most evangelicals are in their understanding of inspiration. This view not only takes theopneustos as meaning God provided each word as the immediate source of all the words, but it also requires that humans aren’t the immediate source of any of the words (remember the Westminster Addendum’s firm denial of anthropopneustos). But humans have to have some sort of role (no one denies the Scripture was *written* or that God was literally holding the pen as it were). This is where the notion that humans are “secondary sources” of inspiration comes in. So, to summarize, God is the immediate and primary source of inspiration, and humans are secondary sources. None of the words of the text ORIGINATED with humans. But again, if we are saying that none of the words of Scripture originated in the mind of a human author, how does this escape some sort of dictation or automatic writing (where the human agent goes into a trance state and is taken over by an outside invisible force that writes for him / her)? What I want to see is an explanation of how this understanding simultaneously avoids both of these dictation options and still has no words ORIGINATING with the human authors. Good luck.
There's more than one mode of inspiration. But in visionary revelation, the seer is in a trance state. In that altered state of consciousness, he not only sees things but hears or overhears speakers using sentences. When he awakens, he transcribes what he heard. In a sense, he is taking dictation. He's a stenographer for what he heard. Take the reported conversations in the Apocalypse.
These ideas fail to view inspiration as a PROCESS, rather than an event. There was no “event” of inspiration with respect to an entire book. Yes, there were divine encounters, and on rare occasions those resulted in written material, but that material was actually only part of a bigger book. Inspired books, though, were not the product of an event or a series of supernatural encounters. They were the result of a long process of successive providences and hard work on the part of the human writers. Here’s how most conservative evangelicals seems to view inspiration (as event). Imagine with me, if you will, Isaiah getting up for breakfast. His alarm clock goes off, he rolls out of bed, brushes his teeth, and goes to the kitchen for breakfast. He rustles up some eggs (hold the bacon and sausage) and toast and sits down to enjoy it. Suddenly he’s zapped by a bright light, his mind is seized and overtaken by God. He probably doesn’t hear God speaking (we must deny dictation, remember), but he knows the Spirit has overtaken him. In what seems like only a few moments, he comes to and voila! Before him lays a scroll filled with words. God has chosen him once again to be the conduit of revelation! The prophet Isaiah carefully rolls up the scroll and deposits it with the rest of the inspired material before the ark of the covenant. Then he goes back home and reheats his breakfast in the microwave.
i) Heiser fails to distinguish between revelation and inspiration. Revelation is an event, whereas inspiration is a process. Take visionary revelation, where the seer is "zapped" by God.
ii) Is the seer's mind "seized by God"? In one respect, what's the difference between a revelatory dream state and a waking state? In both, the mind is processing stimuli. The human mind didn't produce this stimuli. Both seer and observer are on the receiving end of this process. In the case of visionary revelation, he's processing simulated visions and auditions. It's psychological rather than physical. But in both cases the source is external to the recipient.
iii) Now, that's not a correct model for how Luke wrote his Gospel. Luke's Gospel was inspired rather than revealed. Contrast that with the Apocalypse.
A Latino Reformation
A Latino Reformation:
Hispanics in the United States are becoming evangelicals at a rapid rate Time Magazine reports this week.
"Latino evangelicals are one of the fastest growing segments of America's churchgoing millions," said Elizabeth Dias, the author of the report.
Time calls the phenomenon "The Latino Reformation".
Dias's account is Time's cover story in its April 4 edition.
"They call themselves Evangelicos," Time's managing editor Richard Stengel told MSNBC."They are Latino Americans who have embraced an evangelical form of Protestantism."
"Its changing the church, the country and it's fascinating," said Stengel.
The Time article also indicates that Hispanics are turning to evangelicalism because they believe it gives them a more personal relationship with God than Catholicism. There is no priest as a "middleman".
Currently 62 percent of the approximately 52 millionHispanics in the U.S. are Catholic according to a 2012 Pew poll.
Stengel predicted that by 2050 half will be evangelical.
"It is difficult to track the groundswell of these new Protestants," said Dias in a background story. "They often meet in storefronts or living rooms, and language barriers complicate the census process."
After Dias began noticing a number of Hispanic churches in her travels around the Washington, D.C. area she decided to investigate. She attended two of the largest congregations located in suburban Maryland.
"What I discovered signaled a Latino Reformation", she said."Both churches were doubling in size every few years.
Dias met with many of the people attending and listened to their stories.
"To the mainstream American culture, and even other white evangelical churches, they were invisible", she said. "But they were hiding in plain sight."
"The story of both churches repeats itself across America", added Dias.
This is not huge news, except that Latinos typically are recognized as the largest Roman Catholic demographic group in the country right now.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Roman Catholic Policy, 1215: “Kill them all. God will know his own”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12976/Albigensian-Crusade:
I know, he “allegedly” said it. But that word is there because we don’t have video; it’s not for a lack of reliable witnesses. And whether or not that’s a precise quote, you still had a Papal legate leading the charge, and they “massacred almost the entire population of the city”.
The Albigensian Crusade was immensely popular in northern France because it gave pious warriors an opportunity to win a Crusade indulgence (a remission from punishment in the afterlife for sin) without traveling far from home or serving more than 40 days. During the first season the Crusaders captured Béziers in the heart of Cathar territory and—following the instructions of a papal legate who allegedly said, “Kill them all. God will know his own,” when asked how the Crusaders should distinguish the heretics from true Christians—massacred almost the entire population of the city. With the exception of Carcassonne, which held out for a few months, much of the territory of the Albigeois surrendered to the Crusaders. Command of the Crusade was then given to Simon, lord of Montfort and earl of Leicester, who had served during the Fourth Crusade (1202–04)….
For all of its violence and destruction, the Albigensian Crusade failed to remove the Cathar heresy from Languedoc. It did, however, provide a solid framework of new secular lords willing to work with the church against the heretics. Through the subsequent efforts of the Inquisition, which was established by the papacy in the 13th century to try heretics, Catharism was virtually eliminated in Languedoc within a century.
I know, he “allegedly” said it. But that word is there because we don’t have video; it’s not for a lack of reliable witnesses. And whether or not that’s a precise quote, you still had a Papal legate leading the charge, and they “massacred almost the entire population of the city”.
Nothing new and nothing good
Not surprisingly, loyal Catholic pundits have rushed to the defense of Pope Francis's recent comments on homosexuality, assuring us that they don't represent a change in Vatican policy. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that's the case. It's business as usual. Is that better or worse? His conciliatory comments mean Francis has learned absolutely nothing about the priestly abuse scandal that's done so much to tarnish his denomination.
And that's not surprising. He belongs to the same generation as all the other bishops who were complicit in the scandal. So his outlook naturally reflects the status quo ante of his colleagues. People are often defined by the views they formed in their teens and twenties–or even childhood. They don't generally revolutionize their outlook after they come of age.
Assuming the papacy is even capable of reforming the priesthood in reference to homosexual scandals, that would take a future pope of the younger generation whose views were shaped post-scandal rather than pre-scandal.
Dispelling the fog
Debates over the inerrancy of Scripture can be misleading. That's because inerrancy is an implication or effect (both, in fact) of something deeper: the inspiration of Scripture. We can lose sight of this by constantly casting the issue in terms of Biblical inerrancy. But the underlying issue is the inspiration of Scripture.
However, we also need to unpack that concept. Roger Olson recently expressed the alternative: "Yes, I believe the authors of the OT 'texts of terror' recorded correctly what the Hebrew people believed."
So this is what the issue boils down to: Is the Bible God's self-revelation to man, or is the Bible man's idea of God?
Is the Bible a record of what some humans believe about God, or is the Bible a record of God actually telling us what to believe about himself?
When we read the Bible, is God speaking to us? Is this the voice of God? Or is this simply an objectification of human imagination? A self-projection of human ideas about God?
If the Bible is just a record of what ancient Jews and Christians thought God was like, rather than God's self-revelation, then why assume there even is a God? Why not consistently view religion as a psychological and sociological projection of human concepts and cultures?
You can see this dawning on Peter Enns. He's increasingly clear on what he denies. What he's left behind. But once he repudiates the revelatory status of Scripture, he has no way forward. He's lost his bearings. You can watch him flailing about for something to give him direction. But there's no where to go, no middle ground; for once you repudiate the Bible as God's self-revelation to man, atheism is the logical alternative. Like all religions, the Bible depicts an imaginary God. Ancient Jews and Christians externalized their subjective notions of God. Just like Homer, or the Vedic sages.
Now, in affirming the inspiration of Scripture, we don't deny that God often speaks to humans by speaking through humans. However, OT prophets typically quote God. They speak when spoken to. God tells them what to say. A prophet is a mouthpiece. That's the prophetic model.
To be sure, there are more oblique ways in which God can express himself. You have narrative theology, where the narrator uses a protagonist to give voice to his own outlook. He can also recruit an antagonist as a foil. And the viewpoint of the narrator mirrors the divine viewpoint.
But that won't salvage the position of people like Olson, Enns, or Rauser, for the narrator's viewpoint is often what they find most troublesome. They reject the narrator's viewpoint.
Bergoglio’s Gig: Abrogation of Duties and Becoming a “Cafeteria-style Catholic”
 |
| Cafeteria-style Catholicism is Now OK |
First Vatican Council:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
From Session 4: 18 July 1870 “First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ”
And remember, this need for, requirement to make a “judgment” is reiterated in the 2005 statement by Pope Ratzinger, specifically with respect to whether or not one is fit for admission to a seminary to study for priesthood.
“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Another quote:
"Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" the pontiff told a news conference in response to a question. "You can't marginalize these people."
This pope has certainly made it easier for the Roman Catholic in the pew to become a “cafeteria catholic” – all of those individuals who left the Roman church because they divorced and remarried, or wanted to practice “artificial” birth control, soon may feel safe to be flooding back into the pews!
Monday, July 29, 2013
Why I support gay ordination
I used to oppose gay ordination. That's before Frank Turk and Ed Dingess convinced me of the all-important submission to elders:
An evening with Dr. Jack Roberts, a minister in the PCUSA, is a Professor in Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the PCUSA. He also served as vice-president of San Francisco Theological Seminary and founded their Southern California Campus. Earlier, he was Professor of Philosophical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary for 17 years. Dr. Rogers= most recent book, Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality, explores a wide variety of biblical passages and concludes that gay and lesbian persons should be fully included into the life of the church and its ordained ministries.
Why I swam the Tiber
I used to be Protestant. That's before Frank Turk and Ed Dingess convinced me of the all-important submission to elders:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/B8-unam.asp
Why I renounce St. Paul
I used to believe in St. Paul. That's before Frank Turk and Ed Dingess convinced me of the all-important submission to elders:
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts SchoriPresiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end. We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong. For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.
There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it. Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God. She is quite right. She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves.[1] But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!
http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2013/05/13/presiding-bishop-preaches-in-curacao-diocese-of-venezuela/#_ftn1
Why I deny inerrancy
I used to defend inerrancy. That's before Frank Turk and Ed Dingess convinced me of the all-important submission to elders:
I was not present, but, being a ruling elder in the PCA myself, I was quickly apprised of the event.Peter Enns, November 2007http://peterennsonline.com/ii/a-conversation-with-richard-pratts-westminster-and-contemporary-reformed-hermeneutics/
Why I no longer believe in hell
I used to believe in hell. That's before Frank Turk and Ed Dingess convinced me of the all-important submission to elders.
I have just finished reading Flames of Love: Hell and Universal Salvation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012) by Heath Bradley, a United Methodist elder in Arkansas.
http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2013/04/flames-of-love.html
Underestimating our ancestors
Liberals like Paul Seely and Peter Enns think ancient Near Easterners were too oblivious to notice how the observable world worked. Here's an interesting story about how scientists had to rely on the low-tech expertise of local fishermen:
Here's another story about how the younger generation often lacks basic mechanical aptitude, compared to the older generation:
Permit me to share a personal anecdote. I often walk around the football field of my old junior high. There's a nature trail behind the field. There's a chain-link fence between the field and the trail. And there's a pedestrian opening in the fence. The opening has a row of two concrete bollards. I assume they were put there to obstruct dirt motorbikes from using the trail. However, kids who bicycle around the neighbor also use the trail as a shortcut. But the pedals are too wide for the space.
It's amusing to watch kids try to finesse the obstruction. A few of the kids take it in stride. They have one of two techniques. Some of them simply lift the bike right over the bollards. Other kids raise the bike on the back wheel, and scoot it through. Upended, the pedals are above the height of the bollards, so the rest of the bike slips right through.
However, most of the kids I observe are dumbfounded by the challenge. They'll spend like 5 minutes staring at opening and trying different ways to angle their level bike through the bollards.
What's worse is that I'm sure for most of these kids, it's something they do at least once a day, if not several times a day, as they bike around the neighborhood in the summer sunshine, with all that free time on their hands. Yet they act as if each time is the first time they ever had to figure it out.
Now, I'm sure the same kids are super savvy when it comes to hitch gizmos and gadgets of every conceivable description, but they're baffled when it comes to this kind of simple, physical, visual problem-solving. Problems our ancestors could easily eyeball and solve in a flash.
Keep that in mind when you read people like Seely and Enns assure us that our ancestors were clueless about the observable world they lived in.
“Congregation for Catholic Education” on “Homosexuality in the Ordained Ministry”
Here is the official Vatican document, put into effect by Pope Ratzinger:
From the WSJ article that Steve linked to below:
Keep in mind that Pope Bergoglio was asked “an especially delicate” question about “charges of homosexual conduct against his [Bergoglio’s own] selection [whom he] recently appointed delegate to reform the Vatican bank”, “Italian Msgr. Battista Ricca”. Admittedly, there is a difference being admitted to ordination, and being named a papal appointee. But maybe the rules can be relaxed for everyone now.
From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"….
The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities. In the case of a serious doubt in this regard, he must not admit him to ordination.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication. Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries.
From the WSJ article that Steve linked to below:
Pope Francis “is showing a deep respect for the human condition as it is instead of approaching things in a doctrinal way,” said Alberto Melloni, a church historian.
Keep in mind that Pope Bergoglio was asked “an especially delicate” question about “charges of homosexual conduct against his [Bergoglio’s own] selection [whom he] recently appointed delegate to reform the Vatican bank”, “Italian Msgr. Battista Ricca”. Admittedly, there is a difference being admitted to ordination, and being named a papal appointee. But maybe the rules can be relaxed for everyone now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)