Antipelagian

Melchizedek: What Are the Facts?

2011-06-25T15:59:00.005-04:00

I hope to wrap up and put the final nail in the coffin regarding Melchizedek practicing Canaanite worship. In desire of doing this in the most efficient way, I contacted Dr. Richard Hess of Denver Seminary. He shared with me some helpful information, and he confirmed a general conclusion I had:

There's no way to prove that Melchizedek practiced Canaanite religion.

His reasons at certain points were a bit different than I had expected. For example, I had read that there was some disputation about whether Salem in Genesis 14 was Jerusalem, but Dr. Hess seemed to lean toward them being different places.

Dr. Hess is an authority when it comes to the field of studying Semitic rituals and practices...he's written many books and lectures on this field regularly. If anyone will have a depth of knowledge, it would be him.

Keep in mind that I don't know Dr. Hess's theology at all. I highly doubt we're on the same theological continuum, seeing that he's a prof at Denver Seminary. Here is what he wrote:

OK Craig:

Briefly, Ugarit was not technically within the territory that both Egypt and the Bible designate as Canaan. However, it was West Semitic in its dominant language and culture, and that is true of Canaan. So Ugarit and Canaan share much of the same culture. While Ugaritic myth texts could not be considered identical to what was found further south in Canaan, they are representative of what could have been a diverse collection of myths and religious beliefs about Baal, Asherah, and others.

Salem is a town only mentioned in the Bible, mainly in Genesis 14. It is not known outside of the Bible. Many associate it with Jerusalem but no ancient name of Jerusalem matches Salem. If Melchizedek was a priest in Jerusalem he could have practiced Canaanite religion but that is difficult to know. The more we learn the more we are aware of a great diversity of religious practices under general rubrics like Canaan. That he could have worshiped El Elyon as the one true deity is not impossible but not attested outside the Bible. El can be both a common noun for deity and the name of the chief god of the pantheon. It is not possible to say more from the evidence of Genesis 14.[the following Dr. Hess Is responding to a question I proposed re: Jerusalem's relative independence, seeking freedom from Canaan and allying with Egypt] Abdi-Heba was leader of Jerusalem c. 1350 B.C. I would date the time of Abraham at least 300 or 400 years earlier. Egypt controlled most of Canaan during Abdi-Heba’s time. It formed part of their New Kingdom Empire. It was called Canaan by the Egyptian pharaohs but under their general military control.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Rick Hess

Dr. Hess graciously responded to a follow-up message for clarification. It is interesting to note that he confirmed my research which showed El Elyon doesn't appear outside of the Bible. The closest is a description of Baal, and Baal didn't assume as prominent role on Canaan's cult until after Abraham's time...you can fact-check me on this, that's fine:

El Elyon only appears in the Bible. Elyon comes from a root meaning “high, exalted.” A form of this appears at Ugarit as an epithet of Baal (Aliyn Baal = Exalted Baal), but not as a clearly separate deity. In Gen 14 the sense is “exalted El” or “exalted God.” It isn’t possible to tell which by the name itself. However, in the context it suggests that Melchizedek worshiped the true God under this name. Some scholars believe that Genesis 14 implies a tradition of a god at Jerusalem, a manifestation of El, known as El Elyon. This cannot be proven from either the biblical or extra-biblical evidence, however.
[I had asked Dr. Hess if there is evidence of Canaanite leaders acting as priests]
We don’t know a lot about the kings of Canaan. It is certainly possible that they functioned in priestly capacities. We don’t know for sure from the extra-biblical texts.

You can learn a good deal more on the subject of early West Semitic religion by reading my Israelite Religions (Baker, 2007).

Best wishes,
Rick Hess

I think it's pretty clear that Rob's claims are overstatements, to say the least. We see that there was a greater diversity of religious practice in Canaan...which agrees with what I was finding in scholarly articles and books. He's up to date on this stuff, certainly more-so than a guy who got his PhD from a Christianized diploma mill. Further, Salem may not be Jerusalem...which is to say, we don't even know if Melchizedek dwelt in Canaan! Finally, El Elyon is unique to the Bible.

Melchizedek is far from a "slam dunk" for Inclusivists. The extra-biblical evidence just ain't there. The Biblical evidence says clearly: El Elyon (who wasn't a Canaanite deity) is Yahweh.

Sourcing...

2011-06-24T08:06:00.002-04:00

Not all sources are created equal. There is a scientific way I use to measure citations provided by interlocutors. It's simple, and leaves little room for error.

Rob R. has cited the Biblical Heritage Center to bolster his arguments...this is his only source. It failed my 99.99999% scientific accuracy test.

That's right, the Biblical Heritage Center, in existence since 1999, has very few followers. In fact, one of the least savory things I can think of has more than double the followers:

Compare:

And now:

Even with "I like the taste of human feces" having competing pages for the same thing, individually, each page has more members/likes than the Biblical Heritage Center. When you combine both pages, it more triples the "likes" that the Biblical Heritage Center has.

You can't argue with the facts.

Melchizedek, Ugarit...is there a connection?

2011-06-23T09:03:00.004-04:00

I tried posting this in the comment section, but Blogger thought there was html in it for some reason, and kept rejecting it...so I'll just post it as a blog entry:

Rob said: "But that he was not a priest of the Canaanite religion is just a denial of the nature of the times and places."

It's not that simple, Rob. I've been digging into this because of your (unsubstantiated) claims.

I found a scholarly article (a liberal one, not evangelical) and it pointed out (with citations) that Ugarit had a self-conscious identity distinguished from Canaan. If that is true, it is completely unwarranted to assume Salem, at the time of Abram, shared the practices of Ugarit.

Further, the peoples scholars refer to as "Canaanites" is more of a convention than anything. In fact, there was a diversity of religious practices based on geography. When combined with the fact Ugarit had a unique identity from Canaan, it becomes that much more obvious that your claims are unfounded and can't be taken for granted. Harumpfings to the contrary won't make it so.

Complicating your claims is the fact that Salem seemed to have a unique identity, or at the very least had some measure of independence. One of its kings seemed to be allied (or sought an alliance) with Egypt within a couple hundred years of Abram. Does that mean anything? It might...it might not. It at least leaves open the idea that Salem, at the time of Abram, may not have been under influence of Canaan...or, it may have been under influence of Canaan, but remained fairly independent...even desiring to break fee during the time of Abram.

That is not unique, btw. There were varying levels of control where Canaan had power.

All of this to say, you want to take for granted something that is hotly debated. Those that see El Elyon from Gen 14 as a Canaanite god are typically those who view religion through an evolutionary frame of mind...so for them, "of course it's El Elyon of Canaan. The Hebrews were Canaanites who adopted, then altered Canaanite religion". They don't question their assumptions because that isn't "scholarly". El and Elyon appear in the Ugarit texts (and elsewhere), so it must be that Melchizedek was a priest following Canaanite rituals and Yahwehism is just an evolutionary change in practices...that's what they suppose, because, "Darn it! Evolution is true!"

Another complication you probably aren't aware of: Different sources online will say El Elyon was a Canaanite god...these are the sites that come up with a simple google search that regurgitate the same info without citation. But was "El Elyon" an individual god in Canaan?

I went to scholarly sources available on google books, I read conflicting things. One, as an example, agreed that "El Elyon" in Gen 14 was a Canaanite god...however, the source said the name was a combination of two different gods. The question of the day: Why assume El Elyon was a Canaanite god?

For Ugarit (and possibly Canaan), El and Elyon were different.

These names, El, and Elyon, are titles. One is generic, the other isn't. The combination of El Elyon exists almost exclusively in the Bible. So again: why assume a title almost exclusive to the Bible "must" be reference to the Canaanite's/Ugarite's false religion? If the Ugarit texts present uniformity of religious practices, then Melchizedek is evidence of a divergence. He worshiped one God, not El and Elyon...but El Elyon.

Rob, it’s dangerous to interpret Scripture through a lens exterior to Scripture. Melchizedek was a priest of God, Most High. This same God who Abram said in v22 was “Yahweh”. It’s not complicated. This is what Scripture says. Scholars say conflicting things, and when you evaluate the evidence, it really doesn’t shed any light on Genesis 14.

Rob said: “Interestingly, there were no priests in the chosen line until Moses.”

True. Yet believing husbands and fathers acted as priests offering sacrifices. Job did, even making sacrifices for his children. Abram offered sacrifices. Noah offered sacrifices. Cain and Abel did as well…and there was an expectation of what should be offered, which is why Cain killed Abel, as we all know. Likewise, Melchizedek, this priest of Yahweh, served as a king and a priest…in all this he acted as a father, not as a Canaanite cult leader. This actually shows a certain uniformity between Melchizedek and the practice of the patriarchs.

One question I would like to see answered is this: Was it typical among tribal leaders in Canaan to be kings and priests at the time of Abram?

It doesn't seem to be the case.

That not only distinguished Melchizedek in a way which prefigures Christ, but also distinguishes him from the Canaanites...again...evidence of disunity. Melchizedek may have been the last vestige of faith in Salem before it was overrun by Canaanite practices.

Rob said: “What it demonstrates is that what I am saying is line with orthodoxy, it is quite thinkable.”

Again: This doesn’t shed light on the meaning of Genesis 14. At most, it just says that your interpretation is in agreement with another idea, not that the idea is actually provided in the text. What you’ve also done is provided a circular argument. You wanted to cite Melchizedek as an example of a pagan worshiping God ignorantly…worshiping Canaanite gods as if they were Yahweh. Having not been able to demonstrate the claim, retreating to what some Church fathers say in general doesn’t support your case. Why? You were supposed to be showing that idol worship can be authentic worship of Yahweh…but retreating to the fathers on this and then projecting it onto Gen 14 simply assumes the very thing you’re supposed to be proving. It’s circular, and it offers no insight on the chapter at hand.

Rob said: “It certainly highlights that what I am suggesting is not purely novel as you have critisized.”

You need to be specific here, Rob. You may not be trying to be slippery, but that is the end result. Here’s what I mean:

I have never said that your belief in general re: pagans was a novelty.
I have said your interpretation of Gen 14 is a novelty.

Why is this important? You’re supposed to be arguing for the veracity of the first claim.

To bolster the first, you appealed to Melchizedek. While I don’t rest on the fathers, it does say something when someone deviates from a historical understanding. Doesn’t mean the new is wrong, but the claim needs to be examined. I’ve examined it. At the biblical level, Genesis 14 doesn’t offer reason to think El Elyon was a Canaanite god. In fact, Abram says El Elyon is Yahweh. That’s the information we have, and that should be enough.

At the scholarly level (you and I are not scholars on the subject of Ugarit or Canaan), it is hotly debated. In fact, evidence regarding Canaanite practices shows diversity…and regarding Salem, during the time of Abram, it appears it was relatively independent. There’s no scholarly reason to think El Elyon would be anyone other than Yahweh. If he were, it would apparently be a break from the Ugarit texts which have “El” as one god, and “Elyon” as another. So on the one hand, you appeal to the uniformity of Canaanite religious practice (which is already dubious), but on the other, you have to rely on diversity since these were two separate gods being meshed into one. On what grounds do you do this?

The solution is simple, Rob. We don’t know much about Melchizedek. What we do know is what Scripture says: He was a priest of God Most High, the same God of Abram: Yahweh.

Rob said: "I don't mean to insult, and yeah, there is a degree of dismissiveness here."

Well, your judgment at this point is questionable. You've offered no careful arguments, and I'm pretty much sure you've done no further research beyond google hits on Ugarit, Melchizedek, and El Elyon.

I happen to think it is very relevant that Paul was grieved by the sight of idols. As Paul confirms in Romans 1, idol worship is evidence men are being turned over to their wickedness and futile minds. This is consant with Paul's sermon at Athens where he says the Athenian philosophers were ignorant. Luke's comment on the Athenians' character offers further light. It comports with the fact idol worship is not reaching toward God, it is actually the birth pangs of judgment where men are turned over to futile thinking.

Feel free to give up on Melchizedek. I think that would be the manly thing to do.

Acts 17:27 Redux

2011-06-10T06:43:00.001-04:00

Rob R (f.k.a. geebob) responded with a series of comments...so if my one other reader is interested, please see the previous entry.

Was the altar to an unknown god ignorant worship of Yahweh?
Well, for Rob, it depends...and it can depend within the same comment.

Rob said: "So the alter isn’t an example of where the Greek religion authentically grasped God. Their philosophers and poets still got something right that is authentically true and basic about God."

but Rob also says...

"It’s more natural and it fits the context better that the alter to the unknown God is a contact point with the real God. Maybe not for everyone".

Sounds nice...but flies in the face of what he had said mere sentences previously...not to mention it rests on pure conjecture. Where does he find context-clues that lead him to these conclusions? There aren't any.

In fact, Rob appealed to C.S. Lewis' work of fiction, the Last Battle to bolster the idea the Athenians were grasping God in an "authentic" way. That might prove convincing for some, but not myself. Neither should it lend any weight to his point of view given the Last Battle was not an exegesis of Paul's sermon. In fact, this is simply adjusting Acts 17 to Lewis' own thoughts about the faith in general. As I said in the comments, this is an example where Rob's comment was irrelevant.

Rob also appealed to the poem Paul quoted from...a poem to Zeus ("for in him we live and move and have our being"). For Rob, this is evidence of a theology for an unknown god (or not, depends on the moment)...you know, that little known godfather of Greek gods: Zeus. That god to which the Athenians erected a temple to in 6 B.C. Apparently whoever made the altar to an unknown god hadn't traveled less than a mile south of where Paul preached his sermon at Mars Hill to learn that the unknown god was well known, and had a theology. In fact, Zeus was the god of Stoicism...a prominent demographic within Athens, and in Paul's immediate audience. Paul also quoted from a poem entitled Phaenomena, by Aratus...a Stoic. A man also writing of Zeus when he said "we are his offspring".

Rob has served to present evidence that goes against his own take this altar. Why appeal to the mythology of Zeus, the king of the Greek god pantheon and the altar to an unknown god? Zeus is neither unknown, nor was that altar dedicated to him. It should be obvious. Paul is telling the Athenians they don't know God...they have perverted partial truths that point to man's innate knowledge, but it was not a validation of the altar to an unknown god. It is noteworthy that Paul turned the Stoic notion of the logos (in him we live and move and have our being) on its head. Whereas the Stoics had an impersonal notion, Paul, with the Apostle John, had a Christological logos. Zeus may be the godfather of gods an man in mythology, but God is Father of His Logos and of every man. Paul is proclaiming the Fatherhood of God and the eternality of His Son! Paul isn't validating the Athenians, he's turning their philosophy and theology on its head. He's supplanting it with the Trinity. He proclaims all idols are false in a city littered with idols. While you couldn't walk through Athens without bumping into a god, you cannot avoid the True God wherever you step...but He is not made of gold or silver.

In fact, it is doubly strange that the same Paul, apostle to the Greeks, would write in Romans 1 that worshiping idols is evidence of...what? Evidence of a relationship with God? No...evidence a man is being turned over to the futility of his mind and God's wrath hangs over him. Elsewhere, idols worship was said to be demonic. Further, that even the food was for demons.

1 Corinthians 10:20
I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.

Besides this, the general truths every man can apprehend about God is not particularly meaningful, according to James...demons know and shudder.

It is obviously more accurate to say Paul made a systematic refutation of all that the Athenians were proud of...so Rob's point that poems to Zeus prove they worshiped God ignorantly...is wrong, and is irrelevant. Zeus was not unknown. The altar was not to an unknown god if it were made for Zeus. Paul took the occasion to use these things as points of contact for preaching the truth where darkness masquerades as light.

What of the altars in Israel?
Rob said: Disparaging the service of hands to the the unknown alter is strange since God requires the Jews to him at the alter.

I'm just taking my cue from Paul, who preached by the Holy Spirit: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; ²⁵ nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything...

Where Paul saw a connection to the error of the temple and altar worship of Athens and human hands serving there, Rob sees something else. Appealing to God-ordained temple worship in Israel is superficial at best and fails to take into account the fact Paul disparaged the worship the Athenians offered with their hands.

If Rob is correct, one is left wondering why Paul even said those words. You get that sense a lot if you follow Rob's arguments.

The points I made above refutes the idea that this altar was to the true God. I've also explained that Paul was using points of contact for preaching, not proclaiming that the Athenians actually worshiped God, rather, that they were ignorant of Him. As stated previously, that Paul would declare his audience ignorant was a slap in the face. These were the philosophers of the age. Paul was brought before them to be examined and he examined them and said they were ignorant.

LFW is "implied"?
Rob said: "the passage most certainly does imply that ALL men can find God as surely as Paul held that all men were descended from Adam. And to find God IS to accept him."

That's just an assertion...and it fails by Rob's own standard. If the Athenians found God, if the Stoic's theology of Zeus was an ignorant finding of God...then why did nearly everyone reject Paul's God? I thought to find Him was to accept Him? I guess they didn't find Him...but if they didn't find Him, then Rob's wrong. He falls on his own two-edged sword. Also, Paul proclaimed we all descended from one man...something that flew in the face of Greek mythology.

Does having a theology of an unknown god serve to prove Rob's point?
Rob said: "Did you not complain that an unknown God has no theology? Yes, you did, and I pointed out the nature of Paul's citation, not just of that alter but greek thought in philosophy and poetry as a counterexample. (Rob said this during a moment he thought the altar was a point of contact with God and the Athenians)"

And I've already shown above that Zeus was not an unknown god, but the godfather of the pantheon of Greek gods...and he had his own place of worship...not an altar to an unknown god. That Paul would use Zeus as a point of contact along with the altar only serves to demonstrate he wasn't validating false worship but introducing truth to darkness masquerading as light.

Further, if Rob wouldn't selectively read Paul in a wooden way, he would realize that Paul saying what the Athenians worship "in ignorance" would not be ignorance if they had a developed theology. Paul turned the Athenian's theology on it's head and placed it on the altar of ignorance to be burned up so he could present to them God the Father and His resurrected Son who raises men to life.

So was Athenian worship authentic or not?
The best argument one could have for Rob's position is the altar to an unknown god. Rob falters by playing both sides. The religion of the Greeks was wicked, and included beastiality, sodomy, orgies, and more. The gods were prone to sin, vindictive, and unlike God altogether. Besides all this, Rob has already said that to find God is to accept Him, so since most rejected Paul's message we know they didn't actually grasp God in an authentic way.

Perhaps Paul has MPD...and so does Luke.
Rob said: "The other point I missed was the deal you made about Paul being provoked. This, Craig, I don’t take it seriously at all. Of course he was provoked by Idols. I have no clue by what convention of English or normal communication standards you insist that therefore, everything Paul says after this has to be negative about the religion just because Luke doesn’t immeadiately say that there’s going to be some positive comments."

Rob doesn't take it seriously at all? This is another instance where one wonders why the Holy Spirit included such facts...apparently God doesn't get to set up the story. It's just a random disconnected detail for Rob. Paul was provoked and Luke gives us a glimpse of the character of the Athenians (lazy motor-mouths)...but don't let that inform your take of the sermon. In fact, don't let the other facts intrude upon what Rob knows Paul meant! Turning the Athenian thinking on its head and sending it up in flames and calling philosophers ignorant all say positive things.

In short, Rob provided comments that were irrelevant, conjectural, and ignored basic facts. He has yet to make a positive case. He just knows Paul was saying we can all grasp God...in a state of darkness, as Paul put it. All men do grasp God...but they don't all grasp Him "authentically"...that is to say, they don't actually believe in the true God. Rob assumes grasping in the dark is a positive thing...yet it shows man's moral state by being blind. When you grab something in the dark, you can't see what it is that you have.

Is Acts 17:27 a "Proof-Text" for Libertarian Free Will?

2011-06-07T21:23:00.002-04:00

I was reading my facebook feed during lunch, and noticed some comments made by an old friend. Not knowing if he'd like his name shared or not, I'll be cautious and simply refer to him as geebob ("gb").

The exchange included an assertion from a Calvinist saying that no man can seek God before regeneration, to which gb retorted by proof-texting Libertarian Free Will (LFW):

GB: Okay, then Acts 17:27 is wrong.

Rather than rehash a series of fb comments, I want to bullet gb's main points and zero-in on the weaknesses. My intention is NOT: to make Mars Hill into a Calvinist "slam-dunk". It will certainly be consistent with Calvinism, but it was not designed by the Holy Spirit to prove Total Depravity or to refute prevenient grace, or whatever Arminians/Open Theists describe man's LFW. These are categories absent from the time of Paul's sermon, to read those specifically into the text would be anachronistic. That is one big weakness to gb's take...it requires explaining why a modern philosophical categories must be assumed when there was a complete absence of such a category at that time (an explanation he has, as of yet, not bothered to provide). At most, gb might attempt to show how Mars Hill could jive with LFW, but prove it? No.

His main points based on his understanding of the account of Paul at Mars Hill can be boiled down to two:

Paul is not advocating a god foreign to the Athenians, rather, the Athenians are worshiping Him in an incomplete way.
God has endowed all men with the ability to find him.

Was Paul advocating that the altar to an unknown god was, in fact, the Christian God?

Acts 17:22b-23
“Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. ²³ For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore whatyou worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

For gb, this altar to an unknown god indicated a genuine relationship between the LORD and the Athenians, albeit, one which lacked completeness. It would be interesting to see gb explain the "genuineness" of a "relationship" between a man and a god he claims to be agnostic about. In what sense does such a man "know" God?

1. The entire exchange between Paul and the Athenians seems strange if he was saying they truly worshiped God. What is an altar for? Isn't it for presenting gifts, maybe even sacrifices, to a deity? It's where men render to a god service by their hands...yet Paul proclaims God is not served by human hands (v25). Why use a physical object which supposedly bespeaks of the Athenians knowledge to proclaim the opposite of the very little that could be surmised from the existence of that altar?

2. Stranger still, this altar is in the midst of all kinds of different idols...the Athenians really believed deity could be contained by material objects, or explained by the product of man's imagination...so it seems unnatural that Paul, using an man-made altar in the midst of other man-made idols proclaimed that this unknown god (which the Athenians "know") doesn't dwell in a temple (v24) nor is His nature like anything formed by the hands and imagination of men (v29). So far, the only content one might reasonably conclude from the altar is actually wrong.

3. Stranger than even the above is the fact that an "unknown god" is, well...an unknown god. There is no theology for an unknown god. There is no revelation of an unknown god...if there were that god would suddenly be known. There would be revelation. Paul is juxtaposing ignorance and vain reasoning with the true God, the One Who speaks...the One Who reveals.

4. Beyond the strangeness of gb's assertion are the facts contained in Acts 17 which contradict his reading.
a. Acts 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.

i. the word "provoked' is a decidedly "negative" term. One would think the Holy Spirit would have offset this negative with a positive to set up the Mars Hill sermon. You know, by saying "Paul's spirit was provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols, provoked that is until a swell of relief washed over him as he came across a true altar of God, albeit, an ignorant one."
ii. The Holy Spirit didn't offset this provocation of Paul's spirit. Should we assume this mention of Paul's provocation is immaterial to the set-up? Just a random bit of knowledge? I don't think so...here's why:

v18-20 The Stoics and Epicureans didn't recognize this god they apparently knew given they rejected the message Paul gave and found it so foreign that they took him for a confab at the Areopagus. If Paul was not preaching a different god, the Athenians sure got the wrong message.
Luke, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the Athenians were idle motor-mouths: v21 "Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new."

This altar to an unknown god was the epitome of the Athenians' futile reasoning. They were "religious", all right...superstitiously ignorant motor-mouths. That was what they did day in and day out, and all they had to show for it was an altar to an unknown god! Paul was provoked by the idols, now he was provoking the Athenians through a bit of sarcasm.

Has God endowed all men with LFW?

As noted already, reading LFW into Acts 17 would be anachronistic. In fact, given what is laid out above, there's really little reason to go further. But a few comments might be worthwhile.

v26-27 says: He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, ²⁷ that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

It doesn't say all men "can" find God and place their faith in Him based on LFW. It does say God has revealed Himself to every man. Each man's providence is God revealing...uncovering something, to set it before another's eyes does not mean the other is able to accept it. At most, it may provoke curiosity. When God provides revelation, we should seek Him. It think it's obvious God provides revelation to all men so that they would seek Him. All men are at once attracted and repulsed by the truth. Whenever a Christian debates an atheist at a university, the auditorium is filled with atheists...groping, intrigued...yet repulsed. They grope "in the dark". They have something from God, but what they don't have is light. They are either blind, or lack a source for comprehending.

Obviously, what I've laid out jives with a Calvinistic understanding...I wouldn't "proof-text" Total Depravity with it, but it does "fit". Does it disprove LFW? I don't know. It wouldn't be my starting ground for "disproving" it...but neither does it prove LFW. In fact, the notion of LFW gets stickier.

R2k Welcomes Jerry Springer into the Fold

2011-05-18T11:23:00.000-04:00

It's really sad when a blog post written by an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church raised this question in my mind:

Can a son be in a very caring, faithful, and committed sexual relationship with his mother?
Complicated…but very caring, faithful, and committed?

Based on the blog post, and comments that follow...the question is legitimate. I know how I would answer the question, but somehow I don't think Darryl Hart could answer the same way.

Salt...

2011-04-20T12:37:00.006-04:00

I have been reading through Mark in preparation for Easter. While reading chapter 9, the end was striking to me. Almost everyone has heard about the notion of saltiness. It's in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Colossians. Being "salty" can sound like a pleasant way of being seasoned...and it is used that way in Colossians 4:6. It seems that is what Jesus had in mind primarily in Matt 5:13 and Luke 14:34 as well...but not in Mark 9:49-50.

In Mark 9, Jesus adds an unusual teaching to saltiness. It really sticks out from the others. Whereas in other passages, saltiness is tied to flavor, it does not appear to be the meaning in Mark. The union of salt and fire metaphors wouldn't seem to gel if that were the case. Further, the word for salt becoming "unsalty" in v50 is not related to flavor...it is the salt losing what makes it what it is. What is salt? Well, it does something...namely, it preserves. Shifting the metaphor from flavor to preservation, it appears Jesus is adding a paradoxical twist:

Mark 9:49-50
49"For everyone will be salted with fire.
50"Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

Keep in mind, this statement follows Jesus' teaching that if your hand, foot, or eye makes you sin...get rid of them because it's better to enter life missing body parts than to enter hell fire with all your body parts in tact. So on the one hand, you don't want to get burned....but on the other, you're gonna get burned. Everyone will...and being salted with fire is a good thing...so good, we are to have it within ourselves.

Everyone will be salted with fire.
Have salt in yourselves.

Salt preserves what is already there. Fire eliminates what is there.

You will be salted with fire.

Van Til: Modifying Modalism

2011-04-11T22:36:00.014-04:00

On the first installment, I introduced a brief consideration of what Van Til meant by saying the entire Godhead is one person (Introduction to Systematic Theology, pg 229). I explained that the "person" was not referring to the collection of three persons, rather, it was a description of the "substance" of God...that is what "Godhead" refers to: substance, or essence.

Some may want to argue that in referring to the essence as a "person" CVT was using "person" in a different sense than the persons of the Trinity...that in no way pertains to my criticism. While the observation is correct, it's immaterial. Why? The problem isn't simply that CVT used paradoxical language (paradox is a reality when it comes to man's reason, especially with God). In discussing "essence" and "person" with reference to the Trinity, there is a long history of confusion which will not be discussed here (I'm definitely not versed in that enough to be terribly informative). The problem in CVT is that he posits the unity of God and threeness as unity by essence apart from hypostasis...the essence gives rise to the persons, i.e. "diversity". For CVT, God's unity is essence on the one hand and threeness is hypostases on the other. The diagram I composed previously should be helpful in understanding the relationship.

On his view, the essence gives rise to persons, which leaves little (i.e. no) necessary interrelatedness between the persons...the meaningfulness of the Fatherhood of God, His Son's eternal status as Son, and the Spirit of Power goes out the window. This monad is a far cry from what St. Athanasius promoted while Christendom was going Arian. What CVT philosophized as being the answer to the problem of the one and the many boils down to a modalistic oneness [1].

As stated previously, I don't believe CVT was a thorough-going modalist [2] and he certainly would repudiate modalism...but he was not immune from error when discussing his "solution" to the problem of the one and the many. Others have observed that the statement in question is, in fact, unorthodox...those who are sympathetic to CVT (and I would be in the camp of being sympathetic) see that comment as an isolated misstep. Unfortunately, it was not isolated. It is most certain that CVT's statements are simply missteps and not the sort of error which bespeaks an obstinate heresy. Below I will share where these consistent missteps are evident. Here's another quote from him, this time from The Defense of the Faith:

The three persons of the trinity are co-substantial; not one is derived in his substance from either or both of the others. Yet there are three distinct persons in this unity; the diversity and the identity are equally underived. (pg. 12)

As noted already, CVT is trying to walk a fine line whereby he avoids subordinationism, but he errs here in another direction: He asserts that no person of the Trinity is derived in his substance from either or both of the others. This is where an orthodox Christian might wonder: "what does the Bible mean by saying the Son is begotten?", or "what do we mean by saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?" Biblical Trinitarianism asserts the mysterious relationship within the Trinity where the Son is begotten, not made, and the Spirit proceeds...that is to say, there is a point of origin (not of time, but a location). The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son is fully and eternally, and necessarily God as is the Spirit, but they receive, so to speak, their deity from the Father.

Why is this important? For a number of reasons, but I'll go into only one on this post: If the three persons are underived from each other, as CVT states, then they receive it somewhere else...namely, the essence which CVT referred to as a "person". As you can see from this diagram, the relationship of deity centers on the essence and no relationship between the three persons is established...nothing meaningful, at least.

On the one hand, CVT tried to steer clear of subordinationism...but in making the persons non-derivative altogether (a break from orthodox Trinitarianism, btw), he ended up destroying their necessity. He centers consciousness and personality within the essence before he begins discussion of the persons of the Trinity. The conscious (and personal!) essence gives rise to these persons...but in what sense are the three necessary ontologically? Here's the answer: in no sense are they necessary as phrased by CVT.

Perhaps I'm being unfair? Let's take a look at another quote from Van Til...this is from the very chapter in Introduction to Systematic Theology (hereinafter IST) where he states the Godhead is one person:

So then, though we cannot tell why the Godhead should exist tri-personally, we can understand something of the fact, after we are told that God exists as a triune being, that the unity and the plurality of this world has back of it a God in whom unity and the plurality are equally ultimate. (IST, pg 229)

There is a sense in which we cannot tell why God exists tri-personally. We are dependent on God and cannot fit Him into our minds...but there is a sense in which we should be able to apprehend this truth. That CVT should puzzle over this from a Biblical perspective is itself puzzling. Why wouldn’t God exist as Three? Is God eternally Father? Yes. Is God the Father of the Lord Jesus? Yes. If Father then He is eternally so. Since He is Father eternally, He must be Father in relation eternally. The names and titles of God ought to be at least informative of our understanding of the Trinity. For many believers, including CVT, the reality of this threeness is puzzling even with the knowledge of God being Father because of a preoccupation with numerical profundities divorced from hypostasis.

Further, It is troubling that CVT finds a primary validation of unity and diversity simply by looking at non-personal aspects of the created order…by these things “we can understand something of the fact” of God being triune. I don’t think CVT is wrong, but to use that as a main validation point in an introduction to Christian systematic theology seems wrongheaded.

Again, this isn’t isolated. Read CVT and his popularizers. Such discussion of the Trinity comes down to being demonstrated by the existence of unity and particularizations in the world...the Trinity is a mathematical profundity. The name of God we are given in Scripture, and at baptism, seems to have little consequence to CVT when on his quest to "proving" Christian theism transcendentally.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...the name of God is revelatory and speaks of God as He is. Why abstract the persons as CVT has done? This relegates the persons to manifestations...not subordinated to another of the manifestations, but not exactly necessary either. If not necessary, then the door is left open to sexual anarchy…and not surprisingly, that is what we have today. Look at churches that remove masculine pronouns when referring to God, or worse, selecting feminine ones. For these “churches”, such language is equally valid because the sexual identity of God is meaningless…and so is sexual identity with us, consequently. That’s why sodomy, and transgendered monstrosities are just as valid as a man marrying a wife. Still others don’t opt for a modalistic view of God, they opt for social trinitarianism…like CVT, for the tritheists the persons are also equally underived…if any were derived that would imply subordination, and egalitarianism is the name of the game…therefore: social trinitarianism. The name Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere conventions…therefore, sexual anarchy.

The battle for the sexual order God established is limited, primarily, to discussion of exegesis of particular passages...and that is good when you have a shared assumption about Who God is. We don't have this luxury any more. For many, language is so conditioned by culture that discussion of God is always relegated to analogy. Yet the fatherhood among men is actually derived from God. It is something He shares with us, not something we transpose onto Him. When we speak of the Fatherhood of God, we are most closely describing Who He is...but not primarily in relation to us, but in relation to His Son. That is who His Son came to reveal, after all: His Father.

[1] Modalism posits that God is one and manifests himself in different modes. Modalism typically speaks of God manifesting himself as Father, then as the Son, then as the Spirit. God is not tri-personal, or eternally three, rather, he is one and manifests himself one way at one time, then another at another time.

[2] No modalist would accept Van Til's quotes above as is, but that's only because a modalist doesn't believe God concurrently modes himself as three. Only one at a time, please (says the "old school" modalist). Tri-modalism is simply a different species of the same error: God manifests himself in different modes, he just happens to do it concurrently. This is a far cry from Trinitarianism and is an innovative subset of modalism.

Van Til on the Godhead Being "One Person"

2011-03-28T12:13:00.054-04:00

About a month ago, I brought up how Paul Manata seems to have gone all Twi Hard since moving to Grand Rapids, MI. Which is unfortunate as he generally has some good posts. Paul immediately dismissed my questions and comments without first making sure he knew he understood what was being said. My goal is to delve into the substance of the actual issues and not Manata's perceived ones.

Cornelius Van Til made a statement in his Introduction to Systematic Theology (hereinafter "IST") that has been somewhat abused by his detractors, but needlessly defended by his symathizers.

His detractors tend to accuse him of heresy and being illogical. That's not my goal. I do NOT think Van Til a heretic. Additionally, I think what he says is very "logical"...but, taken as is, the statement is heresy (many times heresy is little more than man imposing his own standard of logic on God). I'm a sympathizer of CVT, as many of my posts will attest. I haven't abandoned all things presuppositional...but I also don't think a defense of CVT's statement from IST is in order. To my knowledge, which may not be very great, Van Til's discussion of the Trinity is limited (in print) primarily to philosophical discussions of the problem of the one and the many.

We get small fragments of his conception of the Trinity here and there, like in IST. According to Van Til, and his popularizers, the Trinity shapes our conception of reality itself and is part and parcel to a Christian worldview...yet a robust Trinitarianism none of them make. It's more of a mathematical profundity that essentially comes down to this: "We see unity and diversity in the world...God is One and Three...see?" Of course, when you interject fancy words like "equal ultimacy", "concrete universal" (and other terms) you have yourself a jingoism that appears to be proof of Christianity.

Over the last year or so I've wondered how it is that such bold claims about the Trinity being central to the Christian worldview led none of these men to articulate a robust view of the Trinity. The answer is that they never seem to have considered the Trinity beyond simply affirming it. No problem with simply affirming the truth, but claiming that it shapes our conception of reality ought to render substantial discussion of the Trinity. Let's begin with the quote from Van Til I have alluded to:

It is sometimes asserted that we can prove to men that we are not asserting anything that they ought to consider irrational, inasmuch as we say that God is one in essence and three in person. We therefore claim that we have not asserted unity and trinity of exactly the same thing. Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, the whole Godhead, is one person. (Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology)

Here's the main question that I offer: Who is the "person" to which this term refers? When we refer to God, as simply "God", what do we mean? To "Whom" does "God" refer? This isn't a question I'm answering in this post, but it is striking how often we will use the word "God" and never consider what we mean. Taking Van Til's quote into consideration, to what, or whom, does Van Til refer when he says that the whole Godhead is "one person"?

The answer is God's essence.

Some may take issue with me here and suggest, instead, that Van Til is describing (via paradox) the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one person...that he refers not to the essence. Van Til chose the term "Godhead", however...which is the "substance" of God. "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the Incarnate Deity" (sound familiar?). Van Til also stated in The Defense of the Faith that God is "absolute personality"...the essence (made up of the attributes) is "absolute personality", distinguished from the three Persons.

What we have discussed under the attributes of God may also be summed up by saying that God is absolute personality. The attributes themselves speak of self-conscious and moral activity on the part of God. (The Defense of the Faith)

So Van Til summarizes the discussion of "attributes" (contextually, the attributes make up the essence) as God being "absolute personality". In fact, the essence, in distinction from the Persons, possesses consciousness. This immediately raises red flags. The essence has been so distinguished from the Persons that he begins with attributes, consciousness and even personality before he gets to Persons. If you don't see where this is problematic, stick with me a few more moments. Van Til made another statement which could lend itself to error. This time, it is in reference to the Trinity:

Another point in the Christian doctrine of God that needs to be mentioned here is the trinity. We hold that God exists as a tri-personality. "The trinity is the heart of Christianity" (a reference to Bavinck). The three persons of the trinity are co-substantial; not one is derived in his substance from either or both of the others. Yet there are three distinct persons in this unity; the diversity and the identity are equally underived. (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith)

What does Van Til mean by "underived"? On its face, this statement asserts that the three Persons, by virtue of having the same essence, are underived from one another. To Van Til's mind, this seems to protect us from a heretical notion of subordination where one Person is ontologically greater than another. To guard from this notion, he says the persons are "underived from one another" so that none has primacy over another. They're each "equally ultimate" by virtue of their divinity. The diagram on the right shows the relationship of the Persons according to Van Til. Can you spot what is missing? The Father as father of the Son, and Son as son to the Father seems of no relevance. The "relationship" is a direct line from essence to Persons. Van Til is so concerned with "rescuing" the Persons from being derived from one another that we are left wondering how the three interrelate as an eternal necessity. In explaining the relationship of the Persons to the essence, he neglects the relationship between the Persons.

Given the above, what sense does it make to speak of the Son being "eternally begotten" from the Father, or the Spirit "proceeding" from the Father ( Orthodox) or the Father and the Son: filioque (Roman Catholicism/Protestantism)? The Persons arise from essence as if it were divorced from hypostasis (i.e. a divine person). Is the Son in the Father, and Father in the Son, or is it just that each one possesses the divine essence? The very terms "Father" and "Son" become arbitrary. One is left wondering: are the Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) actually necessary as that eternal interrelatedness? Contrary to Van Til's goal, the one essence actually has primacy over the three persons as he frames it. The essence gives rise to the persons...which is to say, the persons become modes of the essence...modalism (or "trimodalism" in this case as the essence is concurrently manifesting itself as three). God is ultimately one, not equally and ultimately three and one. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations of the One. They are "expressions"...but who's to say there couldn't be other equally valid manifestations of the One? Perhaps Mother, Daughter, and Womb? Perhaps the one chose "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as a relationship to us...which would make apprehension of the essence impossible.

As much as I love Van Til, and consider myself a presuppositionalist, his Ontological Trinity, is a monad. As good Trinitarians, to what should the term "God" refer in order to avoid modalism? When I have some time, I'll delve into that a bit. This is an incredibly practical exercise, believe it or not. My desire is to be rescued from abstracted philosophical "trinitarianism".

"Rude & Arrogant" Post

2011-02-24T15:42:00.007-05:00

I've removed this post as Paul Manata shut down his former site, "Aporetic Christianity". No need to refer to dead links.

Further, reference to Manata is not necessary to delving into the forthcoming series on Van Til's modalistic "Ontological Trinity".

Ichabod Faith

2011-01-21T11:02:00.010-05:00

I may not blog particularly often, but I do read...and I've been following the writings of a man by the name of Darryl G. Hart. I've observed, and participated in discussions with him on the Bayly Blog, and at his appropriately titled blog: Old Life. He is an ordained elder within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and reading what he's put into the public...one may wonder: does he have a ministry? I wonder that myself. On the practical level, I don't see how promoting a radical divide between the life we live on the earth and the life of the Kingdom of God somehow helps a man be a man and lead his wife. I don't see how it can promote godliness that leads to a powerful witness let alone martyrdom. He's a man charged with the care of oversight, but he is unbridled himself. Recently stooping so low as sexual innuendo of the ordained pastors, David and Tim Bayly. His innuendo suggests that perhaps their "obsession" with God's order of creation stems from a general obsession with women in general. Read the comments and you'll see his "amen!" choir...and even slander against me when I interject, followed by further misrepresentation. One commenter, by the name of Eileen was baffled by my assertion that justification by faith alone rests in the Fatherhood of God:

The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone hinges on every woman being submissive to every man?

Of course, neither myself nor the Baylys believe every woman must submit to every man, but (with Paul), no woman may ever exercise authority over any man. Paul didn't limit the scope of which men women may not exert authority, and neither do I. Like Paul, I do limit the scope of who a woman must submit to. I do wonder, though: If a woman is not willing to be silent on church discipline of ordained men (which is a matter within the church, regardless of the discussion occuring on a blog), will that woman really submit to her husband? Probably, if that man allows her to do whatever she wants and submission requires no sacrifice. Justification by faith is rooted in patriarchy...yet Radical 2-Kingdom adherents are largely silent on this issue. To escape the wrath of being in the 1st Adam, you must be found in the 2nd Adam. To escape wrath, you must be:

Born by the Spirit (a display of fatherhood in itself).
Justified by the work of the Son, the 2nd Adam and father of the new race.
Elected by the Father, to the glory of His Son, raised to new life by the Spirit who then forms us after the image of the Son...who is the image of the Father.

Be assured, the fight for the true biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone can only be won according the the Fatherhood of God. A doctrine of justification by faith alone which won't recognize this fact will always lead to a faith of insubordination. A faith with no glory: Ichabod.

Papal Progress

2010-11-22T10:47:00.004-05:00

In what appears to be a Romish attempt at protecting its supply of male prostitutes, the Pope has issued this opinion.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility

The economy is hitting Rome hard, too. They realized it's easier to keep their supply of man-whores rather than train new ones.

The Second Commandment

2010-08-19T17:21:00.001-04:00

A sermon to be listened to.

Dropping My You Tube Account

2010-04-26T20:11:00.002-04:00

To let y'all know, I'm cutting back my internet "presence".

I have been convinced that the internet feeds pride...even when done in the name of Biblical Christianity. Even if I were not prone to arrogance, I still think using You Tube for arguing for the faith is largely futile. Those who believe it is a venue for spiritual battle forget that users tend to put up their vids because they are already fully convinced/deluded.

I'm not discounting the role of the Holy Spirit. Don't get me wrong. I am discounting the role of human reason in bringing men to faith. Long ago I decided my aim wouldn't be so much evangelism as much as helping believers see the futility of unbelief and build them up.

I have decided writing is a better medium. Delving in God's Word is most powerful. When you get involved with the back and forth of response videos, you find yourself going after the guys with the most views...in the end, it becomes shameless self-promotion with a veneer of piety.

I will post here as I am able, and will not be actively promoting this site. I hope readers are encouraged by my efforts.

God bless!

Individual Election, Covenant Succession & Trinity

2010-03-15T09:58:00.000-04:00

Gen 15:1-3a; 22:1-2a
After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.” But Abram said, “Lord GOD, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring"...Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering"...

Do you see covenant succession in these passages, or do you see a man who learned his portion is the Triune God? What I mean is this: as a Calvinist, and especially as a Presbyterian, it is simple to see here covenant succession with God sparing Isaac and confirming to Abraham that he would have a seed that would fill the whole earth...and of course, to see Isaac is a type of Christ, a blameless sacrifice to be offered up for the benefit of those who believe.

I read through these chapters several days ago and it hit me that God added clarity to His promise when He spoke to Abraham in Genesis 15. He told Abraham (Abram, then) that He is his shield and his exceedingly great reward...and I don't believe Abraham quite "got it" yet. He responds immediately by wondering who is he going to pass this reward on to.

To establish a line for Abraham, God must establish Abraham...to establish Abraham, he must be rooted in God. To be rooted in God, he must be willing to discard what is of most value to himself. To many who read this passage, they come up with theoretical contradictions or some vain existential philosophy where the "ethical" is suspended...I'd rather not delve into such superfluous options.

What we have here is a contrast...a contradiction to those reasoning as mere men. God had to bring something out of Abraham in order to establish His Promise. Was God his exceedingly great reward? Had Abraham not obeyed, it would demonstrate that he only saw his son as the promise of God...no, Abraham was the father of faith: He shows that God is his exceedingly great reward. Had he not been willing to kill Isaac, he would have shown that God is not a reward worth passing on as an inheritance. To lose his fellowship with God was worse to him than losing his son. So true was God to him that we are told in Hebrews (by way of divine commentary) that Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead.

To Christians like me, we look for the Promise to be to our children. We see children as a gift and we look toward the future...this is antithetical to much of current evangelicalism which focuses on individualism. These professing believers see little (if any) continuity between their faith and the faith of their fathers...so focused are they on themselves that their children abandon the faith for agnosticism or Romanism. The latter being a trap many Reformed men have fallen into as of late. They have so reacted to individualism that they embrace external means of salvation and a "historical" structure...the individual dies at the expense of the many.

The life of the believer is Trinitarian. God is One in Essence and Three in Person: Neither has supremacy over the other...the Essence and the Persons are equally supreme so as to make the dispensing of one to be the dispensing of all.

If you're seeking to leave an inheritance of faith to your children, your inheritance must be God...how can you pass on what you don't have? You want a seed to fill the whole earth? Do you see the physical seed as the promise or is it faith? If the former, you may have seed, but it will not be an eternal inheritance. If the latter, you must realize your inheritance is only as great as your faith in the Triune God. Your reward is not protected by you...nor is the promise tied to your descendants but to the Word of God...it is His promise. He is the Shield.

This can be seen in the fact that the offering up of Isaac is a "type-ography". There aren't just a couple of types here, there is an interwoven topography that I can't possibly exhaust on this post.

Abraham was a type of the Father, and Isaac a type of the Son...in order for the type-ography to work, Abraham is simultaneously a type of the believer...and also simultaneously, Isaac is Promise.

Insofar that Abraham is a type of us, we will be called to do things that would seem to nullify God's Promise...but only if we are to reason as mere men. We must be willing to sacrifice all things so that we gain the Promise...eternal life. You may have to love God to the point your son or your daughter hate you. You may be looking for that perfect spouse, and you're getting up there in years...it may be that you are simply to be celibate and faithful to God (or God is testing your faith to give you what is best and increase your faith)...but you may come across that man or woman who "could work"...so you consider gaining a "good" thing at the expense of being faithful to God...perhaps God will make this mate work later, so you marry them "in faith". To you, you are failing to see God as your inheritance....your exceedingly great reward. He can raise sons from stones to your name.

At the point you feel you're about to lose it all, you gain it all. Abraham received Isaac as though from the dead...so Abraham received two blessings: his great reward in God, and the promise that God said would be in Isaac. Neither of these are opposed, rather, they are unified, the latter relying on the former. Though God may seem to take all that is temporal from you, He is actually giving. Think on Matthew 7:11: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!" An argument from the lesser to the greater: if evil men can give good gifts, God will give good gifts to His sons when they ask. We cannot walk in Christ thinking that God's gifts are found only in "happy" Providences...if you find yourself in the midst of inscrutable trouble, call out to God...and look in faith at what He is giving you: He is the Father to those that believe...though you may be bitten by a viper, know God has not given you a serpent when you've asked for food. This is the difference between those who shrink back and those who truly believe. To those who shrink back, you may protect a temporal gift, but you will lose it in the end...to those of strong courage, though you lose it, you get it back and then more: God is your exceedingly great reward.

If you want a great name, a posterity extending into the future...be sure you have Something to pass on other than your DNA. Unless you are established in the Triune God, you will simply be blown away like chaff...forgotten...no posterity...no Promise. If you seek an inheritance, know that it is God...and though you lose all and die to gain the kingdom, your blood will hit the parched ground to make it fertile.

Thoughts on Abram Rejecting the Gifts of the King of Sodom

2010-03-09T11:24:00.003-05:00

Genesis 14:21-23
Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.”But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’

This passage struck me as I was reading the Word. I've decided to read through the Bible in 6 months (or less). If I simply read 5 pages per day, I will make it within 6, but I want to read more than the minimum. I worried that it would become a duty to perform, so I prayed God would prepare me, that His Spirit would attend to His Word, and He is faithful.

What struck me about this passage was how God had already promised Abram the entire earth after Lot chose to live among to Sodomites:
And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you.”

The act of faith on Abram's part is striking. He has God's prophetic Word that he will have offspring and the ends of the earth...the token from the king of Sodom could have been interpreted as though God's Word was being fulfilled before his own eyes: plunder and riches from the hands of those opposed to God...but he didn't take the riches. He did take benefit from Pharaoh, however, when he lied and said Sarai was his sister.

So what's the difference? Why take wealth from one unbelieving nation but not another? Is there a lesson in this for us? There are several things to consider (probably more):
1) Abram received wealth from Pharaoh as, what can only be interpreted, as a free act of God's mercy and grace in spite of his sin.
2) The gifts Pharaoh gave were the result of God's mighty acts...God plagued his household for taking Sarai as a wife.
3) Abram invaded the camps of the kings Arioch, Chedorlaomer, and Tidal and rescued Lot...and not only Lot, but other peoples of the land of Sodom. These kings and their armies had put the armies of Sodom to flight when they tried to rescue their people.

It's as if Pharaoh's gifts were acceptable because he knew he was a debtor to the God of Abram, that he was subject to God's rule. Yet the pride of the king of Sodom would be fed by blessing Abram. The glory of the defeat of those kings was to belong to God alone.

I think there are many applications to be gleaned here. It's apparent that evangelicalism has succumbed to the belief that the praise of unbelievers are to be desired. That this somehow is a gold star on the progress of God's kingdom by fleshly means. Doubt me? Who buys the Purpose Driven Life, or Your Best Life Now...other than evangelicals, aren't the other consumers businessmen? The profiteers of American industry. Men who seek to amass for themselves glory, fame, and money....but to be sure, these men pay their tithe. It is a tithe much like that of the king of Sodom. These are often major donors to churches, their building programs, their outreach ministries...they have plaques on the walls of churches that rubber-stamp the achievements of the profiteers.

Unlike Melchizedek, and unlike Abram, these men do not call upon the LORD and say of Him:
“ Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;

²⁰ And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

For these men, they finance God's wars. Any victory can be traced materially back to them. God gets the credit, but God draws from a line of credit belonging to flesh. God is not the Possessor of their finances, their families, nor their ability to make money. These are the men we seek to impress. When they curse God's name or trample upon the weak, they are given a pass...after all, we may need their line of credit someday in the future. Or, perhaps we have already received from them. They have validated our words, or works, our teachings, our ministries...our credibility resides in these men. The kingdom of God becomes the kingdom of this world: an exchange of the eternal for the finite.

God's kingdom is eternal, all flesh must bow before Him. Whether or not wealthy men or princes bow in faith to our God, if we receive from them it must not be at the cost of Christ's kingdom. If a blasphemer wants to validate a man of God, or one seeking to please God, do not be flattered by his words. His gift is not a token of his faith, it is as a banker gives out a loan. The terms of these loans accrue an interest yet to be determined and can never be repaid. At least the unbeliever who is wise enough to fear God recognizes he adds nothing to the kingdom by his own strength but only as God has caused their plunder to benefit the Kingdom of our great King, God, and Savior, Jesus the Christ. For the unbeliever who has no fear, his wealth must always be spurned. The success of the gospel may be measured by their gifts remaining in their hands. It will descend into the grave with them.

Be certain that when you seek to follow Christ, there will be revilers...be certain as well that revilers may also speak soothing words and give you gifts that will shipwreck you.

Ayn Rand: Prophetess of Evil

2010-02-04T10:46:00.003-05:00

As I continue my reconsideration of Capitalism, I came across a link to this article that discusses the character, Ayn Rand:

...she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."
She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

Is this the brand of Capitalism conservatives want to foster?

When God is Exchanged for Thomas Jefferson

2010-01-29T16:41:00.003-05:00

Just a reminder to those who believe...atheism is not scary. It's that unruly child everyone knows needs a spanking.

This was an exchange I had with a pseudo atheist:

Brian: I use logic and reason. I do not believe in supernatural fantasies....I've discovered that my religious views precisely parallel those of Thomas Jefferson.

The angry, violent, revengeful, psychopathic deity you're telling me about is false. The concept of a truly just and loving Nature's God is true.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson would refer to your belief system in make-believe ghosts and spirits as "masked atheism." ...

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this MASKED ATHEISM, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is." ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Thomas Jefferson was a true Christian - the only way Jesus ever wanted.

Craig: "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings" -Thomas Jefferson (as quoted by Brian)

"I use logic and reason" Brian

Brian, what is logic and reason?

Brian: Reason and logic are the hard work accomplished by a brain in gear.

"A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

"[God has bestowed] reason...as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814

Craig: What does logic look like after the brain has made it? Also, if no one's brains are functioning, can A be A and not A at the same time and in the same sense?

***At this point, Brian responds to someone else, and ignores my questions...so after10 hours, I asked***

Craig: Brian, what does logic look like? How much does it weigh? Does it taste like chicken?

****Approximately 14 hours go by...no response...so I state****

Craig: Brian, I slept on it and I realized...magical pink unicorns can't tell us anything about truth. I'm afraid that's what logic should be to you. I'm a Christian and my worldview makes immaterial things, like logic,intelligible.

I'd appreciate it if you'd simply believe in Christ that way you can use logic rather than stealing from my worldview.

PS the same goes for morality

Brian: “Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict ‘It is.’" ~John Galt's speech http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106

Craig, your mockery of reason marks you as an abject failure in Jefferson's hope for American citizenry:

"My hope [is] that we have not labored in vain, and that our experiment will still prove that men can be governed by reason." ~Thomas Jefferson to George Mason, 1791

Why don't you put on your thinking cap, jump on the team, and come on in for the big win? Or is your vision a country run by the religious-right Taliban? Salem Witch Trials, anyone?

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." ~U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times 3/23/05)

Craig: Brian,
far from being logical (which you can't be *on your own terms*), you've managed to make zero logical arguments. You've made bare assertions, made appeals to authority, used ad hominem, used circular reasoning, and used red herrings, and then changed the subject to irrelevancies such as the Republican party or theocracies.

Why don't you answer my simple question?

If you use logic, and also believe the reference from TJ that reference to immaterial things is reference to nothing...then what is logic? If it is immaterial, it is nothing (on your terms). If the laws of logic are immaterial, and true, your materialism is false. If logic is material, then you can tell me how heavy it is, what it looks like or some other tangible descriptor.

Logic cannot be immaterial and materialism cannot be true at the same time...I mean, if you want to be logical. You don't want anyone to think you're operating on blind faith, do you Brian?

Also, if anyone is following this...note that Brian is a religious man. Those who reject the transcendent, Triune God will worship what is found under the sun. For many (including Brian), it is a political order. Those political orders will always oppose Christianity as they view allegiance to Christ as a threat to total obedience to their political faith.

For Brian, the Constitution is his god, and TJ is his prophet.

Brian:Craig, I will not help you to escape your extreme bewilderment regarding reason and logic. You must do that yourself.

No, my religious views are not a "political order." Furthermore, obedience and submission are what your magical deity demands, lest he torture me sadistically for all eternity for my virtue of Independence.

Nature's God is one of Freedom, not obedience.

I've introduced the subject of politics for a practical reason. It shows religious belief in a Tyrant deity has practical consequences - Tyranny here on earth.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." ~Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Craig: Just so we're clear...you don't have an answer for your contradicting assertions.

When cornered, quote more Thomas Jefferson...when shown your worldview can't account for logic or morality, quote TJ and take the moral high ground. Just remember, when you do either of those things, you are not arguing from your worldview. If you continue functioning on the assumption that logic is valid, I hope you will remember our conversation. I hope you will remember that, for logic to be true, your worldview must be false. That you own words pull the rug out from under you. That you prove God's Word true by this recurring theme:

Psalm 141:8-10
But my eyes are upon you, Oh God the Lord; in You I take refuge do not leave my soul destitute. Keep me from the snares they have laid for me and from the traps of the workers of iniquity. Let the wicked fall into their own nets, while I escape safely.

Brian: Craig, you've neither identified any contradiction, nor do you have me "cornered."

You've just spouted inanities showing how poorly you understand the philosophical theory of materialism (which Thomas Jefferson wrote about to John Adams, above) and the mental faculty of reason.

Your belief system denigrates the mind and reason; therefore, I'm not shocked that a simpleton like you labels anybody who can think as "wicked."

"The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems [Jesus',] for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there." ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

Craig: Brian, I stand by what I've said. You have no idea what I know/don't know about materialism.

I'll leave the question out there for others to ponder, perhaps another prophet will take up your mantle:
If speaking of immaterial things is to speak of nothings...then what is logic?

Calling it a product of the brain would make it material...but it would not allow it to be universal. Your brain's reasoning process would be no more "truthful" than my digesting a chicken sandwich. Logic would not be a unified set of laws, rather, logic would be different to each person as my brain's activity is not your brain's activity.

You may counter: there is correct brain functioning and there is wrong brain functioning...well, who determines that? Your brain? Mine? A majority vote? That in itself is a death-blow to your notion of freedom.

All you can do is appeal to your own brain's activity...but I don't think you are the standard, are you? Probably not. Then there's the whole problem of *who* is thinking in your brain? Are you the product of your brain? If so, you're like that chicken sandwich passing through my intestines. You're not free. You're determined by an unreasoning activity of your body. That being the case, you can't argue intelligibly that your brain's activity is any more virtuous than a bowel movement.

If you are not your brain, what are you? Is your personhood immaterial? If so, we're back to your worldview contradicting itself. You would be nothing. If you are material, you're not free...all you can do is slide down the inevitable path of the digestion track as it works you out of its system.

Brian: Craig, the phenomena of consciousness from the brain does not follow that logic and reason must somehow "taste like a chicken" or any other absurdity as you posit. Nor does it follow that consciousness is supernatural — which is the foregone conclusion of your religious belief system.

I do applaud your stated interest in the relevance of contradiction. That's a good start! Run with it, because a short definition of logic is simply "non-contradictory integration."

"We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." ~Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

Craig: Is logic immaterial?

Brian: Consciousness — the capacity of awareness — is a phenomena of the physical mind that exists materially.

Reason the mind's tool to identify and integrate what you learn from your senses. Logic is non-contradictory reasoning.

If nothing existed materially, then consciousness, and subsequently of reason and logic, could not exist.

That is my complete answer to your question. If you're playing a shyster lawyer demanding a yes/no answer when it calls for clarification, they think how Jesus answered such:

"And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him." ~The Jefferson Bible, chap. 1, v. 55

I'll continue:

Mysticism posits a reality different than the one in which we live, i.e., super-natural.

Since one cannot perceive the supernatural, mystics claim faith is the way they somehow perceive it. However, faith is only faith in somebody else's authority - I told you so!

The I-told-you-so! authority sources are holy books, clergy, prophets claiming they hear divine voices, or even sci-fi authors deliberately pulling people's leg. (as is the case of L. Ron Hubbard inventing "Scientology.")

Whether you fall for L. Ron Hubbard, or the Apostle Paul's corruptions of Jesus' teachings, you're accepting as truth what he told you to accept as truth without—or in spite of—of logical evidence.

"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Corypheus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." ~Thomas Jefferson

To clarify the above, I'll quote a Jefferson biographer:

"Like other Enlightenment rationalists, Jefferson was convinced that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle Paul, who had corrupted the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus, which thus had, in combination with the otherworldly outlook of the Fourth Gospel, produced the monstrosities of dogma, superstition, and priestcraft, which were the essence of Christian orthodoxy." ~Jaroslav Pelikan, Jefferson And Contemporaries, pg. 5

Craig, I never, ever submit to any I-Told-You-So! Authority over my mind.

And that is our irreconcilable difference. I think. You submit and obey, as if there's no other way, to be happy in Jesus. You follow the dogma, superstition, and priestcraft. I'll be an Enlightenment rationalist.

Craig: No shyster lawyering here...I just don't want to shake a stick in the dark.

You said: "Reason the mind's tool to identify and integrate what you learn from your senses. Logic is non-contradictory reasoning."

One problem here is that you can't perceive logical truths. When I observe a tree...at that moment, I'm not perceiving that the same tree cannot also be a rock. There is no inductive inference to go from on that. So if you're basing deductive reasoning (logic) on induction (perception/empirical testing), you can't even bolster the law of non-contradiction.

Further, you would have to assume the trustworthiness of your senses for your reasoning to be correct...if you are perceiving a sharp object as being blunt, your mind may try to integrate this, but it's working from inaccurate data. In order to justify the trustworthiness of your senses, you must appeal to your senses...which would be circular reasoning...you must prove your case, not appeal to the very thing in question.

The very fact that you accept that the mind "integrates" what your senses are perceiving means you're presupposing rationality and order...yet these are the things you're supposed to be proving from your worldview...again, you are employing circular logic.

Finally, when empiricists (which you seem to be) function on the axiom that everything must be perceivable in order to be intelligible...that axiom cannot be perceived. It's self-refuting.

I have barely scratched the surface on showing the self-refuting nature of materialism...For instance: If consciousness is a product of the brain's activity, it would follow that my "self-awareness" is determined by electric impulses jumping synapses...correcting one's reasoning process would require brain surgery...and as I brought out already, since no man can justify his own experiences by appealing to his senses, you couldn't know that the brain surgeon will wire your brain properly or if you even need the surgery in the first place.

Further, it adds an insurmountable difficulty in justifying the sort of personal liberty Brian would like to establish. If he is the product of an unthinking biological process...he's simply the necessary antecedent to a succession of natural acts. Much in the same way the backside of a fly goes through his brain when he collides with my windshield

Brian: Rationality is a matter of choice. Sacrifice your mind's reason to the I-Told-You-So! authority of faith if you wish.

Nature has given to man no other means of sifting the truth, either in religion, law, or politics." ~Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792

Craig: That in no way began to speak to the critique I laid out.

I already demonstrated you sacrificed rationality to materialism. If you followed my argument, you will note I've implicitly addressed the absurdity of your equivalent of an altar call to choose rationality rather than sacrifice my mind to authority.

According to your view, I am the necessary antecedent to prior natural events. Any choice I make is the result of physical laws set in motion before my brain began.

You have not offered rationality, and you've offered nothing but bondage.

"The true religion which shall satisfy our mind and heart, our conscience and our will, must be one that does not shut us up in, but lifts us high above the world; in the midst of time it must impart to us eternity; in the midst of death give us life; in the midst of the stream of change place us on the immovable rock of salvation. This is the reason why transcendence, supranaturalism, revelation, are essential to all religion." -Herman Bavinck

Brian: EPISTEMOLOGY

You're using reason in an attempt to destroy the validity of reason. The alphabet, words, grammar are all derivatives of reason. You're using them in an attempt to destroy reason. It's obvious you've studied philosophy. But it's kind of like watching a fellow hit himself with a hammer, trying to destroy his own mind's only legitimate tool.

Regardless, you are distorting my rejection of the supernatural into a witless determinism. No, we're not deterministic robots as you falsely attribute. That's a straw-man sophistry.

DIVINE REVELATION

I reject claims that some supernatural deity is talking through a man who says he hears voices. Why? There are several rational explanations for people who hear voices from "God." They might be confidence men. Maybe they have a mental disorder.

Auditory hallucinations are a key sign of schizophrenia. I've observed that myself while working on a Psych Ward in the hospital. The victims are very sincere. I didn't take their "voice of god" hallucinations authoritatively.

The author of the Book of Mormons claims divine revelation. In my opinion, he was just a con man like L. Ron Hubbard. I don't take his "voice of god" claims authoritatively.

Paul, the self-titled "Apostle" (even though he never knew Jesus) claimed to hear divine voices. Maybe he was sincere. Maybe he was a con. Who knows? At any rate, I don't take his "voice of god" claims authoritatively.

SON OF GOD - Score: 0

Do you realize that "The Son of God" is a term that never passed Jesus' lips? (Yes, I realize the phrase is in the Gospels - but Jesus never said the term directly. It was always others attributing the term to Jesus. )

JESUS, SON OF MAN - Score: 12

Jesus always referred to himself as "The Son of Man." (I counted only occurrences in the Jefferson Bible - there are plenty more in the Council of Nicaea's selected Gospels.)

He might think it absurd how Paul the Mythmaker, and pauline Gospel authors, managed to turn Jesus into a pagan Mediterranean blood salvation cult figure and make him into a god.

It's kind of like George Washington's legend of the cherry tree, which is a fabrication by Mason Locke Weems. Calling that a fabrication doesn't mean I reject or denigrate the the First President.

I like George Washington. I like Jesus; in fact I follow his teachings as a Christian - the way I think he would have wanted.

HELL FOR THINKERS

Now Paul might want to send me to hell for — not bad actions — but mere skepticism.

But I don't accept things that appear untrue, using reason and logic and applying it to history.

And it's unjust to think a God would send me to hell to punish me for using my mind to the best of my ability.

Such absurd claims of "divine punishment" are merely human claims from those types of people are hostile to reason. And why wouldn't they be hostile? I've kept control of my mind; they've sacrificed theirs to an inferior I-Told-You-So! authority.

Ya think they're just a wee bit jealous? Are you? This cowboy doesn't submit to schizophrenic ramblings - and you do.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

Craig: Brian,
I'm not destroying reason...I've destroyed your worldview. Reason would only be destroyed if it happened to be synonymous with materialism...which is not...as I demonstrated.

It would do you well to learn what you are talking about when it comes to logic. From what I can tell, you have no actual acquaintance with it...it seems that, to you, something is logical if it agrees with your point of view...which is materialism. Time and again, you simply take for granted your point of view as if I somehow have the impetus of meeting with that standard...I reject it outright. It fails on its own terms...miserably...embarrassingly miserably, I might add.

I'm tempted to say we've hit the impasse...I don't believe we can go any further. When I provide logical arguments, you counter with assertion, empty rhetoric, and appeals to Thomas Jefferson...you then complete the picture with distorted oversimplifications of Christian teaching and try to make me out to be an imbecile...not terribly thought-provoking and it tests the patience of anyone with a modicum of generosity when a thoughtful interaction is returned with disrespect.

Unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric is par for the course, especially with the "New Atheist" movement. What passes for "free-thinking" and inquiry is little more than open ridicule of ideas the "free-thinker" takes no time to understand...ignorance looks from a distance, the real thinker goes to the wardrobe of ideas and tries things on to see how they fit.

When an ignorant man happens to cross a battlefield, he stops to point at all the men wearing "shiny space suits" and laughs...only to be disemboweled by one of those large, pointy things the silly chaps in shiny space suits is carrying (before he's disemboweled, he makes a remarkably astute observation about how the pointy thing in each man's hand is an attempt at compensating for something in a Freudian manner). Just before the man dies, he shouts defiantly: "PUDDING!" His fellow ignorants will applaud the martyr...he died because he pointed out the obvious. He saw the truth: Shiny space suits and men with large pointy things trying to compensate for something.

Brian Concludes

Brian: Oh my!...you've "destroyed" my world view..."disemboweled"..."pointy thing"...

Whew!

Such is typical terminology from the Obedience-Domination-Fear-Submission-Authoritarian-Taliban worldview. Angry, abused people have merely invented their angry, abusive God in their image. Unfortunately, this false fear-mongering Hellbringer deity has manifest such a danger here on earth:... See more

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Nature's God —Love, Life, Liberty, Happiness, Reason— is waiting there for you to discover. I hope you do some day.

And as Jesus said to love your theological debate opponents (among other "enemies,") I'll say this:

I love you in Jesus' name and may God's peace be with you.

MY CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Craig: In conclusion, you seem to have missed the point of the battlefield analogy (sorry, couldn't resist saying "point").

It wasn't to say out how "awesome" my arguments are and that you were disemboweled...it was to shed light on the fact that ignorants mock what they don't understand...they make light of what is of the utmost seriousness. They think by saying "shiny space suits" or using sham psychology that they're actually dealing with what's in front of them.

Brian, submit yourself to Christ. His authority is supreme. His yoke is freedom. You believe error, but you are not in danger of hell because of a lack of evidence...God does not condemn men because they fail intellectually...we fail to recognize God on account of our sin. What we do know, we suppress, not because of our wisdom, but because of our sin.
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 8:6-7
The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

1 Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

You do not need an intellectual argument, you need to repent and believe. God will give you a new heart...and the freedom and love you say you desire will be realized...only bigger, greater, and eternal.

What is Distributivism?

2010-01-25T10:06:00.005-05:00

For a while now, I've been tinkering with taking a different route when it comes to economics. For my entire life, I've been a capitalist...not really ever questioning it. I toyed with socialism in theory as an undergrad, but didn't like collectivism...it always breeds the antithesis of individuality and the many will be ruled by the few, and the few will let the many know what's best for them.

There are excesses to capitalism, it seems. It is an approach where wealth seems to justify itself...wealth begets wealth, and you acquire more of it so more may be built. The one with more wealth will trump the one with little...how does the small man compete with the wealthy man? The many will largely become servants of the few. The value of a man's work is not so much determined by his abilities, his needs, or his family's...it is typically a cold, calculated determination by a man seeking to pay as little as possible for another man's labor that will contribute to the miser's well-being. Don't get me wrong, there are many business owners who will pay a man based on that man's need...I actually know many like this. This is not the outworking of capitalism, rather, it is the outworking of Christian faith.

Most capitalists, especially of the Austrian variety, will say this isn't necessarily true. Capitalism breeds competition when unencumbered by government intervention...and I agree that government intervention is a huge problem. How do we overcome the problem of cheaper labor in countries that do not allow individual freedoms? Global companies finance the well-being of countries that shackle the liberty of men...yet we talk about freedom and the individual...but our wealthy corporations don't really value individual liberty, they value cheap labor. That must be the case since capitalism is a cold, impersonal system where the "quantifiable" atheistic impulse is seated on the throne while the individual is shackled with no place of appeal...how do you argue with a formula? Impersonal mathematics, the logician's savior for rationality, is a most irrational way of dealing with men.

Both of these systems seem to accomplish the same ends by different means...the flattening of the many under the thumb of the few.

I may not have completely bought into distributivism, but it's critique of capitalism is quite thought-provoking. It is not socialism, and it is not communism...distributivism is about "distributing" the means of production...that is, there should not be powerful concentrations of the means of production into the hands of the few. To my mind, this should be the bed-fellow American individual liberty. If we believe the concentration of political power breeds evil, why would that not be the case economically? For Americans, the situation is doubly troubling as the means of production are not the only items with concentration into the hands of the few...the same few also have politicians in their pockets. The masses of the little man must not only compete with a leviathan of wealth, he also has skyscraping obstacles that have been placed in front of him by legislation devised by those sitting on top.

Statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death. -Hilaire Belloc

Ask Antipelagian Part 1 & 2

2009-12-29T23:19:00.004-05:00

You sent in your questions...now you have to listen to me.

You Got A Question?

2009-12-09T19:28:00.002-05:00

I'm fielding questions on You Tube...if anyone has a question of a serious or silly nature, send me an email:

craig(at)antipelagian.com

It could a theological question, personal question, advice on cars, what puppies are best for kicking, who's going to the Super Bowl...pretty much anything you like. I plan on making a video responding to questions I receive.

So Funny Piper Forgot to Laugh?

2009-12-05T19:59:00.006-05:00

Below is a clip from a full sermon Pastor John Piper delivered to the American Association of Christian Counselors. You can watch the entire sermon here. I'm late getting to this, it was posted to Desiring God mid September. I couldn't believe the continuous response to Piper's words.

Lest anyone think I'm being ungracious to the counselors that laughed, consider that this was a conference they signed up for...I would assume they didn't blindly sign up, rather, they looked at what was going on and made an informed decision. After all, the AACC posted conference info just like any other organization does when it puts on a conference. Here's the link to it, and you'll note Piper is displayed prominently, along with a bio. Besides this, they had a schedule, and you may also observe that John Piper was part of the opening plenary session, not the stand-up comic opening throw a pie in your face and spray some seltzer down your pants session.

"Literalist" Hermeneutics, John's Gospel & the Synoptics

2009-11-25T21:19:00.000-05:00

***Videos 1 and 2 are both re-done***
I hesitate posting these videos...I find my own voice irritating. I hope these are somewhat helpful, though. You may come across unbelievers who accuse evangelicals of being "selectively" literal when they read the Bible. Perhaps you've read the Passion accounts and wondered how it is that Jesus could celebrate Passover on a Thursday night and then see John's record stating Jesus was crucified on the Preparation Day of Passover...isn't that the day they slaughter the lambs for Passover? How could Jesus partake of the Passover and then die before He partook?

These topics came up by way of a You Tuber going by the moniker "PropMTH". He gets thousands and thousands of views per vid. He basically regurgitated Bart Ehrman's observations (here's his vid), which seemed to add to the practicality of making a response...which turned into two videos. The first one primarily deals with the notion of "literalist" hermeneutics...the second deals with the the apparent contradiction between John and the synoptics. It's a total of twenty minutes worth of your time. If you were to choose one, and not the other, I'd recommend beginning with the second one even though it is a direct continuation from the first.

Many thanks go out to Turretin Fan for linking me up to a book called A Harmony of the Gospels edited by A.T. Robertson (that link is to google books...they have most of the book on there for free). Besides a helpful discussion of Preparation Day, this book addresses another difficulty with clarity I haven't seen anyone else use...why is it John seemed to think Jesus was crucified at a different time than Mark? I'll give you the answer, but I'd encourage you to read up on it. John wrote his Gospel to non-Jews well after the destruction of the temple...his audience followed the Roman way of keeping time...and A.T. Robertson doesn't pose this as a mere possibility, I'm convinced of it as John freely referred to evening as being part of the same day...and not the beginning of another day (remember, Jews followed a lunar calendar which means the evening marked the beginning of a new day)...that is to say, John converted the events to the Roman way of keeping time. Very interesting stuff, and it's amazing to think it takes current scholarship to muck everything up.

Here's Video 1...I did the video over again. It is shorter, easier to follow, and has different visuals:

Here's Video 2...this one is also easier to follow (in my opinion)...and it shows my mad photo "enhancing" skills:

Crucifixion Timelines in Synoptics and John's Gospel

2009-11-18T08:48:00.000-05:00

***Updated***
I recorded this video again using a microphone...you can actually hear everything with no problem. I also added some more visuals (not many, don't get too excited).
This is the third, and final, video that's part of a series directed toward ProfMTH.

Topics covered:
Conclusive proof that John's Gospel has Jesus dying on Friday, the day after the Passover meal.

What of the time discrepancies between Mark and John? Mark has Jesus on the cross at the third hour, John has Jesus on trial still at the sixth hour.

Velvet Calvin

2009-11-04T21:40:00.011-05:00

I'm glad I'm not in the market for a seminary...by bringing this up, I would be automatically precluding myself from one in particular...Westminster in California is where R. Scott Clark teaches, and he is a confessionally Reformed fellow. What gets some of these WSC guys into trouble is when they try to be consistent on their 2 Kingdom approach to Christianity. If you remember reading a post from a bit back, you'll recall that 2 Kingdom theology essentially places Jesus as King of the spiritual realm while here on planet earth, we're ruled by man.

Scott Clark runs Heidelblog, and today he wonders if a Christian man dealt with a situation appropriately. This man (from his side of the story, we don't know the other) was working at a retail store and lost his job for stating his opinion about sodomy...this didn't come out of the blue as the woman manager made it a point of bringing up her "fiancee" (i.e. lesbian cohabitator) and flaunting her rebellion about. Here's the video:

I don't think he did a perfect job of confronting the woman...in fact, I don't think he did particularly well...but it's difficult for me to blame him. Christians are used to saying "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life"...that doesn't translate well when sin needs to be addressed. Our latent Pelagianism is caught off guard when men flaunt their sin and demonstrate they aren't looking for God to bandage up their boo-boos. We're great at talking about someone's tone of voice, or if Billy shares with others, or some other superfluous standard of "niceness". We're great at that...oh yeah, and we're very good at apologizing for being zealot Pharisees (well, okay, we don't apologize for ourselves, we apologize for all "those" other "Christians" that we're not like)...so we're out of practice when it comes to addressing sin. Here's Scott Clark's take:

If he wanted to communicate the gospel to her, Instead of accusing her of sin (of which she is guilty) would he have done better to accuse himself?

Are you serious Professor Clark? Seriously? That is ridiculous...step away from your 2 kingdom view for a minute...I'm not saying become a Christian Reconstructionist, I'm just saying to act a bit more like Paul or John the Baptizer. Did Paul accuse himself when in Athens? Did Paul accuse himself when he went before Caesar? I know, did John the Baptizer accuse himself before Herod?

Is there a practical difference between Scott Clark's approach here compared to Rob Bell's Bullhorn guy?

A not-so-uncommon refrain from Calvinistic 2-Kingdomers:

Just Two Pieces of Wood Nailed at a 90 Degree Angle

2009-10-26T23:17:00.007-04:00

(Thanks to Tim V. for sending me the vid link)

Especially interesting from about 3:14 through the end.

Colbert Report: Symbol-Minded

I'm not of the opinion that Colbert is affirming the Christian faith...but he is pointing out how vacuous it is to say it's not an exclusive religion...I'm certain that fact disgusts him, but that's more respectable than those trying to "level" the field where menagerie Jesus can hang out with a Muhammad action figure.

A Theological Consideration of Immigration

2009-10-21T22:54:00.001-04:00

Over the past several weeks, there have been issues pertaining to illegal immigration, racialism, and other things related to national sovereignty and identity arising in my little world. In many respects, my mind has not changed much on these issues over the past 8 years or so....I say "not much" but that is not to say the shift was small. One can hold two fundamentally different opinions at different points in his life...and yet have many of the same beliefs. The support structure for the beliefs has changed...either for better, or for iller.

My political views are currently being informed directly by the Scriptures, and yes...the Old Testament. Previously, I held to a "Two Kingdom" view: I was living on the earth, waiting for heaven...and I just kinda sat on my lump of earth looking heavenward on occasion and wondered where the connection between the "secular" and sacred was. As some proponents of Two Kingdom theory would say, God rules the Church by His Word, but the world by Providence...and by Providence, they really mean man sets up his own kingdom by his own standards, and since we're Calvinists, we'll just say that's Providence when we really mean man is autonomous.

Today, many would liken my approach to a second camp called "Christian Reconstruction", or would simply label me a "Theonomist". I'm not sure if either of those descriptors would be accurate. I've read a couple of books by Theonomists (who are also Christian Reconstructionists), but those schools of thought have a lot of baggage attached to them that I really haven't studied...in the mean time, I just describe my approach as "theonomic"...I'm not necessarily a "Theonomist", and I'm certain to use the lower-case "t" when I say theonomic. I'm a Presbyterian (old school, not the liberal mainline version), and Presbyterianism is historically "theonomic". Samuel Rutherford was a Presby, and he wrote Lex Rex...the precursor to our American style of government...though our founders made the religious foundation a bit ambiguous (to say the least). The rule of law, and specifically, a law informed by God's Law was foundational to Old School Calvinists and the preservation of individual liberty while preventing tyranny of the mob or the tyranny of a dictator.

Many have forgotten how instrumental the Old Testament Law has been to Western Civilization, but it's clear. Many think "Oh, that OT Law was wicked cruel"...yadda yadda yadda. That's simply not the case. The Law is concerned with many things, but there are three that jump out time and time again: the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner. I'm leaving out other things, like incorporating idol worship and other things related to the first table of the Law, so I'm really looking more at the second table.

If the sojourner (i.e. the alien) was of great importance to God, and how His people treated them was brought up constantly, why is it that Christians don't seem to give much consideration to this fact? Perhaps it's because we don't want to sound like liberals...and many will think my view to be liberal if they fail to take the time to reason from the Scriptures. I'm far from liberal. If libs hold to a similar view to me it is an accidental thing arrived at from completely different routes.

What does the Bible say?

Deut 10:17-19
17"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.18"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.19"So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

This passage isn't exclusive to Deuteronomy 10. It is stated and restated throughout the Pentateuch. The Biblical appeal in favor for the alien is two-fold: 1. God executes justice for him and gives him food and clothing... 2. and we were also aliens in Egypt, so do as God says.

Many Evangelicals have divorced their faith completely from the Old Covenant...you know, it's "those types and shadows and all, therefore it's meaningless"...or so they seem to think. What it fails to acknowledge is that God grounds the treatment of aliens on His own activity...something we are to emulate. God hasn't stopped caring for the alien...does the advent of Christ suddenly nullify the command to us to do likewise?

Here are some snippets from the OT:

Ex 22:21 "You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Ex 23:9 "You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Lev 19:10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.

Lev 23:22 "And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God."

Lev 25:35 "If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

God was so thoroughly clear as to how the sojourner was to be cared for that He used that standard as the kindness to be shown to a native son of Israel who found himself in need...yet we neglect this aspect that God says is part and parcel to a land where justice flows. Nations that ignore this standard will be judged by it...and God seems to think very little of those who pervert justice for the alien.

Psalm 94 3-9a
³O LORD,how long shall the wicked,
how long shall the wicked exult?
⁴They pour out their^H)"> arrogant words;
all^I)"> the evildoers boast.
⁵They^J)"> crush your people, O LORD,
and afflict your heritage.
⁶They kill the widow and the sojourner,
and murder the fatherless;
⁷ and they say, "The LORD does not see;
the God of Jacob does not perceive." ⁸ Understand, O dullest of the people!
Fools, when will you be wise?
⁹ He who planted the ear, does he not hear?He who formed the eye, does he not see? ¹⁰ He who disciplines the nations...

Nations will be judged by all of the above...yet we want to build walls to keep out the alien and and kick them out?

[admittedly, there are many questions that would be raised while reading this entry...such as the fact that illegals are breaking our law. I have some considerations concerning that among other things, but may save for future installments. This is a first to get our minds back to the Word]

Jay Dyer Re-Converts...Sort Of.

2009-10-21T22:39:00.010-04:00

Jay Dyer, who has been an outspoken Catholic, Sedevacantist, Eastern Orthodox (not quite, but almost), Catholic (again)...has decided to convert to Orthodoxy...again...although maybe all the way this time.

See, all you have to do is consult the Church fathers and you're set on which church is the True Church...The fact an Orthodox/Romanist can flip-flop on what church is the "True" Church based on his own studies disproves the premise both Orthodox/Romanists use in their appeals to authority. How much you wanna bet he'll still use the whole "well my church is really, really, really old" argument?

Here's a screen capture of his facebook announcement:

Keith Bardwell...a Racist Democrat or a Racist Republican?

2009-10-16T15:16:00.016-04:00

Don at the Nookular Option posted a blog entry concerning justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell denying an interracial couple a marriage license...Don (preemptively anticipating the passage of issue #3 in Ohio) wagers in the comment section:

Anyone want to make a bet as to which political party Keith Bardwell belongs to?

I thought I'd do a little research, and here's what I found. This is the Louisiana Secretary of State info concerning the incumbent history of Keith Bardwell:

Justice of the Peace, Justice of the Peace Ward 8, Parish of Tangipahoa
E. Keith Bardwell, Republican, Exp.Date:12/31/14	23288 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732
Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/08	23288 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732
Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/02	23288 Bardwell Road,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732
Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/96	224 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 504/542-1732

(I did not put Bardwell's Republican affiliation in bold, that's how it shows up on the site...I imagine that it's in bold simply because that's his current information)

He was a Democrat from 1996 until 2008...and he bases his views on his own history of observing interracial marriages...a history that likely extends into a past previous to the days of yore known popularly as "A.D. 2008". Concerning Bardwell's position on interracial marriage, it is said:
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long...[see here]
Sounds like he was a racialist before he was a Republican...unless his experience as a justice of the peace between 1996-2008 doesn't count...although the Huffington Post seems to substantiate that Bardwell's views were set when he was a Democrat:

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

If we go back all 2 1/2 years, that puts us squarely into those long-forgotten days of when Bardwell was a Democrat. Someone may say "But see! 2 1/2 years ago...he's only been denying folks for a short time leading up to his change to the Republican party"...yeah, there's also the issue that this is in the Deep South...interracial marriages don't happen too often, and when they do, people tend to be careful. Bardwell's wife fielded calls for him advising folks to go elsewhere if they wanted to marry outside their race:

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html
(ibid)

It seems that this is the first couple to challenge Bardwell. Others came, and being denied, simply went somewhere else. Many others, it would be safe to assume, spoke to Mrs. Bardwell and took her advice and never bothered seeking a license through Bardwell and simply went elsewhere for a marriage license.

So, did his party affiliation matter when he was a racialist and a Democrat? Or does it only matter now that he's a Republican?

Dishonest Danny

2009-10-06T21:27:00.005-04:00

James White followed up on a reference Dan Barker made in their debate. Essentially, Dan asserted that Justin Martyr encouraged pagans to become Christians since "we all believe the same things"...Dr. White was a bit incredulous about this, but Barker insisted that was the substance of Justin's argument...sadly (for Dan), he ought to realize Justin Martyr's Apologia is not a little known work...in fact, it's easy to find:

Justin's Apology XI

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

So Justin differentiated between Christianity and pagan beliefs...now look at chapter XX

And the Sibyl and Hystaspes said that there should be a dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

I encourage you to go on to chapter XXI and watch the sarcasm dripping from Justin's pen...and also where he says the pagan gods are none else than demons!

So Dan...either you're a moron (which I'm quite open to), or you're a liar (open to this, too), or both (to be honest, that's where I'm leaning). Justin is calling Rome hypocritical for killing Christians given the mythology Rome embraced. One wonders why he would become a martyr when dim-witted atheists make him out to be uber ecumenical.

Listen to Dr. White go into greater detail if you like

James White Debated Dan Barker

2009-09-29T22:50:00.015-04:00

(Caught wind of the debate from Turretin Fan) You can listen to Dan Barker be a cry baby...and you can also listen to him assert that the facts of Jesus' birth and miracles were borrowed from other pagan sources. He opens by slightly changing the story of the three pigs...everyone in the audience recognized that's what he was doing...somehow this is supposed to solidify the theory the Biblical records did the same. This was apparently a brilliant set-up in the small mind of Mr. Barker.

My question:
If we can immediately recognize the story of the three pigs when the story is altered, and we can tell someone is simply stealing the story line, why would anyone accept the authority of the Biblical records during the times of the Old Testament and the early Church? Are we supposed to think people were so stupid back then that they didn't recognize what, for them, would have been fairly contemporary tales? Maybe they did recognize them but felt the retellings so much superior that they were worth dying for. Methinks Dan is simply employing transference when it comes to the diminished capacity he suffers from.

Dan crying like a little girl:

Dan Barker: I object (to James White interacting with quotes from Barker's own book Godless) because we're not debating my book...you don't know that I may have changed my mind in the mean time...I may have changed my mind about ether, for example...for the record, I think it's inappropriate...I didn't quote anything you wrote...

James White: That's the point, that's the problem. We need to deal with what someone has actually put into the public realm.

"God is My Co-Pilot" -Satan

2009-09-18T09:40:00.000-04:00

Well, according to Arminianism.

The Less Obvious Form of Racism

2009-09-17T08:33:00.002-04:00

Taken from Doug Wilson's blog:

There are different kinds of racism -- the malicious kind, which we all recognize, and the patronizing, "benevolent" kind, the kind that liberals specialize in, and which is invisible to them. Smug platitudes make up the air they breathe, and you can't point it out to them. How are they supposed to see their air?
If a black man who is steeped in the standards of real civilization -- highly educated, industrious, hard-working, and he were to propose economic policies that would actually be a blessing, what will he be accused of by liberals? Right, he would be accused of being a race traitor. Liberals think that a black man cannot be a true black man without being dysfunctional, and dysfunctional in such a way as to require them to be his savior. How convenient. In their on-going self-narrative, they landed the starring role yet again. I call that real acting talent. (emphasis mine)

The License of Legalism

2009-08-30T23:47:00.007-04:00

In a world that has immersed itself in "freedom" and license, there are certain words that evoke a reaction that is not dissimilar to chewing rocks...sadly, as with the world, so it is with the Church. Words such as "Law" are foreboden. On the sad occassion that a chap brings up that dirty word pointing to the Old Testament, the tongue clucking becomes so loud one wonders if he's just entered a hen-house.

Clever Hen: "Cluck cluck cluck! Don't you know Christ came to eliminate the Law? Jesus brought grace and freedom, it was the Pharisees that liked talking about the Law".

Welcome the voodoo of the licentious man's taboo.

The Law was not taboo to Jesus, in fact, He appealed to the Law (Moses) concerning Himself:
Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. [1]

How is it that if the Law points to Jesus that we are to ignore it? That doesn't make sense. If the Law was simply abolished (in the sense that it has no bearing on us) what sense does it make that Moses appeared with glory at Christ's Transfiguration? Perhaps if the Law was abolished, Moses could have joined Christ at the Transfiguration for Jesus to throw him off a mountain, or something...as is, he appeared with Elijah, signifying the agreement there is between all of the history of revelation. This is where liberty and law kiss, so to speak. There is no disagreement.

Where do folks get the idea that the use of the Law is gone? Well, by misreading Paul for starters, let's consider Hebrews 7:18-19

18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because
of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Clearly, there is a use that is "annulled"...but then again, it wasn't ever in effect except in the case of those trying to justify themselves: The Law never gave man power to overcome sin. It pointed it out, and by pointing it out it directed man to his fallen condition and need of a Savior. There is another aspect of the law that's annulled (for the believer, at least): the curse...but what aspects of the law ought not be observed? Looking at Hebrews it is clear that the ceremonial law, especially the work of the high priest is done away with since perfection has come:

Hebrews 7:20-24
20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The LORD has sworn And will not relent, ‘ You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’”), 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.

Unchanging, unending priesthood...so what was annulled? The ceremonial law. Why? The perfect Sacrifice came, died, was vindicated by His resurrection and now He intercedes to the Father on our behalf. The shadow was annulled because the reality it pointed to came:

Heb 7:28-8:5a
28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things...

Really, in one sense you could say the law hasn't been annulled at all...as the ceremonial law is a shadow of the archetypal reality. There was a use of the ceremonial shadow, the analogue is of no need since revelation (especially in Jesus Christ) is complete. There are many laws that are annulled in society as things change...those laws are useful for a time, but they fall out of practice because we don't generally ride our horses to the saloon anymore. If that law is annulled, is the principle of law then gone? Of course not! The Archetype has come. So the law is not bad, not even the ceremonial...it's that it's been fulfilled and our Advocate now appeals on our behalf as of the order of Melchizedeck.

So again, why were the Pharisees that bad? They just seemed to think more highly of the Law than they ought, right? Not according to Jesus. At the base of their Law observance was "license". It was actually subversive to the Law. As Jesus said to them:

Mark 7:5-11
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” 6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘ This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God)

Notice that the Pharisees bound men's conscience's by their own tradition, thereby nullifying the Word of God. The legalism of the Pharisees was, at heart, lawlessness...which is why Christ said they honor God with their lips but their heart is far from Him. Pharisees called on gifts to be given by the faithful, and they gave very sanctified reasons for these gifts..."Let's call them: 'corban!' A gift to God! Wonderful! Wait, what if a man's parents are in need? Well, we can still receive the gift because this is a gift to God".

Conscience cleansed! Viola! Let the parents rot a bit, there's some God-pleasing to do...

Jesus called on the testimony of Moses to demonstrate the lawlessness of the Pharisees. We are not immune to the spirit of legalism. It is very present with us today, giving us many "wise" instructions to be followed...we're not under Law, after all, but we have some guidelines you must follow. God's not a stickler for rules after all, so here are some rules: Fill in the ____________.

The heart of Pharisaism is always antinomianism...the legalist will always hate God's Law, so he will reason his way around it and sound like a friend to the Word of God. The Pharisee is the biggest friend of cheap grace (ie. your sin isn't that great) and will offer the Christian a heavier burden than God has ever given him to bear (just do this, this, this and this and you will be a "good" Christian).

To the man who says "yea and amen" to God's Law, you have a High Priest sprinkling the throne of grace...you are saved by grace and not works.

To the man who is a licentious legalist: You have no High Priest, and you will never please God. Your lips speak deceit and your heart is far from God. You are condemned by your works.

The "Aqueduct" of Divine Grace (St. Bernard's description, not mine)

2009-08-27T12:28:00.011-04:00

With thanks to Jay Dyer for pointing it out on facebook:

This particular painting was done by Alonso Cano. I found another version by Juan de las Roelas, which can be found here...in this Juan's version, St. Bernard doesn't appear ready for the miraculous delight, so you get to see the Blessed Lactator ably aim a steady stream of milk into his barely open mouth.

This is the foolishness you end up with when Christian religion based on revelation is bypassed for a religion of man-made images.

Some of you will likely think these images are jokes. I don't blame you...there is something especially Monty Pythonesque about the image on the left. But these are actual religious works of "art" for the faithful. I'm pretty sure even Andrew Zimmern would be very weirded out by this heavenly food...here's more info on St. Bernard and his elevation of Mary to a 4th person of the Quadrinity.

Rise Up O Just One!

2009-08-14T16:08:00.003-04:00

Everlasting Word Band has released their first album which is available for download.

The Lord has blessed my church with godly, stout-hearted men seeking to glorify Him!

Here's the first track.
Psalm 94: O Lord of Vengeance

Now Browse By Topic

2009-08-12T23:32:00.003-04:00

As I keep plugging away here at Antipelagian, I realized it would be nice to have an added navigation option. With that in mind, I've begun doing just that. There hasn't been a large compilation yet, but I may be adding some older articles I've written over the years.

For now, you may look under "Helpful Links" to the right, and you'll see "Craig French's Topical Index". Just click on it and navigating to what interests you will be that much easier.

Installment Three: Jay's Festal Robes Get in a Bunch

2009-08-08T17:30:00.000-04:00

Jay's second installment took a stroll on an unfortunate path...a path of ad hominem. He tip-toes around many of my points to labor on about bull-hockey. Here's an example from his third installment:

Craig brought up Origen and so far has quoted two Protestant writers about what they think Origen thought, but once again, notice that I'm showing you what Origen said. I then proceeded to show several quotes from Origen using the Deuterocanon. Here's an idea Craig - put down the secondary-source Protestant writers and read the actual Fathers; it's what I decided to do in '01.

Yes, dear readers...look closely at what Jay is doing...notice that he's offering a two-for-one fallacy sale: Red Herring with a twist of Ad Hominem. Even if I never went to original sources (which is immaterial, making it a red herring), does that discredit the points I'm raising? The suggestion here is that because I'm not terribly conversant with the Fathers, then you should shake your head at my argument (hence, the twist of ad hom). My sources went to the primaries, after all. On the other hand, Jay goes to primary sources and makes it a point to tell you how many years he's put into this and how great he is...kudos, Jay...kudos. Are you now a self-authenticating source?

If you haven't already folks, please make a mental note that Jay is couching the discussion in such a way to merely cast aspersions on me...I had hoped this wasn't the path he would take, but that is what he's choosing to do, apparently.

This is where it gets even more asinine:

Secondly, Craig, don't challenge me on what I've read.

Are you serious? A little tongue in cheek and a little tit for tat, and Jay's festal robes get lodged in his backside. Let me make sure I'm getting the rules straight here:
1) Craig presents a quote from Archbold Alexander (where Alexander presents no context for the quote)...Jay points out the quote was out of context, and Craig agrees and goes on to say that even William Webster makes the same point Jay does concerning Origen...but this still apparently means that Craig's entire discussion worthy of the trash and Jay assumes I'm not reading any primary sources.
Summary of rule #1: Craig's always wrong!

2) Jay postulates that the aforementioned quote I shared came from WilliamWebster or James White...I proved that was faulty and proceeded to question whether Jay has read Webster..."Don't you dare challenge me!" says Jay Cryer. Mental note: "Jay Cryer must really be a self-authenticating authority...rule #2 should really be rule #1...don't ever do this again self".
Summary of rule #2: Don't doubt the Jay!

Here's a tip, Jay:
Lay off of the Origen issue. I retracted what I said. To top it off, Origen was the LEAST of the substance of that particular post. If you're going to harangue about something, could you at least make sure it's something of actual relevance to the discussion?

Jay said:

Craig says he's not going into a case for the Protestant canon in his piece. I thought that is what this debate was about - the canon.

Sorry, but I'm correcting you first then I will make an argument for my canon. You claim to have the historical canon...so far, you're just hanging your hat on the fact the Septuagint contains Apocrypha...however, you fail to note that the codices aren't uniform when it comes to the books they contain, so your spurious claims of historicity remain laughable...especially when the vast number of codices was the catalyst for Jerome undertaking his Latin rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Here's what Ellis observes concerning the differing codices:

“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject off discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of scripture…There is also no evidence that the ante-Nicene church received or adopted a Septuagint canon,” E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in Light of Modern Research (Baker 1992), 34-35 (I found this quote at Triablogue)

Interesting! So when Jay says:

No, as I showed in my original article, only certain Palestinian Jews rejected the LXX. Non-Palestinian Jews often used the LXX and guess what - the Apostles were Palestinian Jews who accepted and used the LXX!

I have to chuckle. Jay speaks of the LXX as if it's this one version that has been accepted historically...but which LXX did the Apostles use? Depending on which, it still doesn't follow that they gave their rubber-stamp to any Apocryphal writings.

There isn't a unified voice from the Church concerning the acceptable LXX codices, either:

...during the 4C there were three different Septuagints in use in the major Christian centers of the eastern Mediterranean: 1) the churches in Antioch and Constantinople (qq.v.) used the Lucianic recension; 2) Caesarea (q.v.) in Palestine utilized a translation by Origen (q.v.) that was updated by Pamphilus and Eusebius (q.v.); and 3) Alexandria (q.v.) had a third recension by a certain Hesychius about which little else is known. The Constantinopolitan practice, based on a translation done by the Presbyter Lucian (who preferred Attic forms), finally won out” M. Prokurat et al. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1966), pg 294 (I found this quote at Triablogue)

Jay's assertion that "the" LXX was blessed by the Apostles falls flat. There were many different codices of the LXX that contained differing books. What is even more devastating is that what we currently refer to as the Septuagint can't be confirmed as being around during the time of Christ and the Apostles. Our earliest copies of the Codex B (aka Vaticanus) dates to the middle of the 4th century A.D. Moreover, there were revisions made to Codex B before we had our current Codex B (plus revisions afterward). For example: Lucian in the early 4th century A.D. (See Schaff, Ante-Nicean Christianity here) and Hesychius around the same time (Catholic Encyclopedia). Both of these editors (not to mention Origen) have been considered heretical, although Lucian may not have been (there is split opinion on this as noted in Schaff).

What I'm getting at here is that Jay must establish that what we refer to as the Septuagint now is the same which Christ and the Apostles referred to. This has already been brought to Jay's attention by Steve Hays:

i) Once again, Dyer has been repeatedly corrected on this point, but he continues to falsify the record by his deceptive presentation. He has not begun to establish that 1C copies of the LXX correspond to 4-5C copies of the LXX (e.g. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus). And he ignores evidence to the contrary by scholars like Beckwith, deSilva, and Hanhart.

I'm quite content to assume there were Greek translations of the OT floating around the time of Christ and the Apostles...it would be a radical leap, however, to assert there is some uniform historicity to the deuterocannon when we know there are multiple revisions that have been made and differing books collected in different versions of what we now pedestrianly refer to as "the" Septuagint.
Thus Jobes and Silva state (I know, Protestants!):

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Septuagint. This may seem like an odd statement in a book entitled Invitation to the Septuagint, but unless the reader appreciates the fluidity and ambiguity of the term, he or she will quickly become confused by the literature. ( Invitation to the Septuagint, Baker 2000, pg 30)

and also:

The term Septuagint, which has been used in a confusing variety of ways, gives the inaccurate impression that this document is a homogeneous unit ( Invitation to the Septuagint), ibid, pg 29)

So I'm going to bring up an item from my previous rebuttal:
Given that the historical record for the LXX is one of much diversity, and no uniformity, it must be that Jay is resting his faith in the authority of Rome and his appeals to "history" is really a misnomer. Let's follow Jay's logic:

Craig, you don't understand our position. You should know we don't base our canon on any single father or group of Fathers..........The Church's magisterium defines the canon for us, not this and that Father.......This should be clear because the canons of various fathers generally differ! That was my whole point (emphasis Jay's)

I want to make sure I have this straight:
When Jay says my canon is ahistorical, he really means I don't accept the authoritative ultimacy of Rome's Magisetrium...duh! This is why when I bring up the convoluted history of the canon until Trent, Jay likes to point out he doesn't hang his hat on any one Father or group of Fathers, rather, the Magisterium. When I point out Trent made its declaration after the Reformation, Jay likes to then appeal to historicity...I go back to history and he says (essentially):

No no no! You just don't get it, Craig! I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I'm allowed to do that. If you don't like it, refer to Rule #2 (which, btw, should be rule #1).

His logic continues:

So thank you for admitting they (the Fathers) are not authorities for you. Again the question comes back - since the are only "witnesses," how do we decide which canon is correct?

You just finished saying your canon is not based on any one Father or group of Fathers...seeing you don't put stock on the consistency of history (as you said yourself: This should be clear because the canons of various fathers generally differ! That was my whole point) and since that was "whole point", you concede your canon rests on the authority of a Magisterial decision post-dating the Reformation. You may not like how I phrased that, but that is a fact. As I pointed out on my previous rebuttal, your logic on this is viciously circular.

But let's consider the Council of Trent for a moment. Trent declared in its Fourth Session:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church. (found here)

It is of interest to note that this "most holy" and "wise" council was speaking presciently since it is safe to conclude that, even if all of Rome's church had used the old Latin Vulgate, they were not in obedience with this decree...indeed, NONE of Rome's churches were in accordance with this decree because the edition that was to be used in the public reading, preaching, etc did not as of yet exist.

It was admitted and brought to the attention of the council only a month prior to this decree that the Vulgate did not agree with the Hebrew and Greek originals, and that a revision of the text to correct the errors was needed. It was then suggested that the 'primitive' Vulgate should be restored, and that the papacy would be best suited to take on the responsibility to oversee this task. (Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol I pg. 162)

Francis Turretin summarizes the embarrassment quite accurately:

The council of Trent canonized an edition which at the time had no existence and appeared forty-six years afterwards. The decree was made in 1546. In 1590, the work was finished and published by Sixtus V; two years after that it was published by Clement VIII. Now how could a council approve and declare authentic an edition which it had not examined and in fact had not yet been made? (Quoted in ibid, pg 162-163 comes from Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol I, XV.ix)

It was also noted by David King that Cardinal Pole recommended the original Hebrew and Greek texts be included as authentic texts, but this was rejected. Pope Sixtus V made his own attempt to revise the old Vulgate, but could never seem to satisfy himself...he noticed he omitted entire verses and other embarrassing blunders. Sixtus had his version circulated to cardinals and had a Papal Bull that was to be issued (though was never properly promulgated) that would establish the authority of this perverted text. Fortunately for Rome, Sixtus V died within a few days of issuing his version and sale of his Bible was forbidden (referred to in ibid, pg. 164 in reference to a quote in Steinmuller's Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol I).

It may be that Romanists would play down the implication of a Papal Bull not being promulgated and chalk it up to the Providence of God...however, Sixtus V, by virtue of his authority, issued this Papal Bull. Sixtus V consciously made this declaration from his official office. By Rome's standard, this should carry authority since:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold...

Which is precisely what was done by this Bull not being spread around. Sixtus had used his office to judge the true sense of the Scriptures, and his office was rejected and others of "petulant spirits" went ahead and wrested "the sacred Scripture to his own senses" and presumed "to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary" to what a Pope, in his official seat, declared to be so.

Trent goes on to say of works on the Scripture

...even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. (both quotes from Trent taken from here)

In practice, Sixtus V was subjected to the authority of holy Scripture...in order to establish (and fulfill the prophetic oracle of Trent) that Rome alone has received the Scriptures by way of uninterrupted succession. I can see how it is that Jay has so ably, and fluidly, spoken from both sides of his mouth and offered contradicting standards for measuring canon. He learned it from Mother Kirk...and remember, if you don't agree with Jay, please refer to Rule #2 (which should always be Rule #1).

If this isn't enough to demonstrate the absurdity of Rome's authority, consider what was just alluded to: Cardinal Pole recommended the original Greek and Hebrew texts be included in the authentic texts received by Rome...this was rejected. It has since been adopted officially by way of "authoritative" Encyclical. Consider what Pope Pius XII says in Divino Afflante Spiritu:

14. The Fathers of the Church in their time, especially Augustine, warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study-of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts.[22] However, such was the state of letters in those times, that not many -- and these few but imperfectly -- knew the Hebrew language. In the middle ages, when Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate.
15. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.
16. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text. (Taken from here)

You'll notice that Pius attempts to couch the way he states things in order to appear he's in conformity with Trent. He says later:

20. Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.[24] It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God. (Taken from Divino Afflante Spiritu here)

There is an even more devastating argument against the Romanist to be made from here...and I wonder why this aspect wasn't discussed in Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. It made reference to this Encyclical, and I looked it up and read it. I already noted that the "authentic" version of Scripture did not exist at the time of Trent...it was later thought to exist when Pope Clement, with help of Brodrick, completed the revision of the revisions that Sixtus V had rascally revised...yet consider what Pope Pius XII is saying:

He's keeping in spirit with Trent by publishing an accurate edition of Scripture...but I thought Clement fulfilled the prescient oracle of Trent? Could it be that Rome still doesn't have the realized version Trent prophecied!

Jay doesn't necessarily have the right canon, and worse yet: By virtue of this Encyclical, legitimacy is given to Protestant scholarship that has been working with the original documents...which is to say, Protestants may not have the complete Bible (according to Rome), but we're closer to it! This is something agreed on before the Reformation, and Calvin and Luther carried on this same, historically accepted principle! Rome's canon, including the most revered Douay-Rheims which is based on the corrupted text, was accepted by Trent as authentic (but not yet in existence...it was but a twinkle in the eye remember!) and was considered imperfect by Pius XII...at this point, Jay could argue that his version is "good enough"...to which I say: "But ours is better still! And Rome agrees!"

Jay's initial point is in a bloody shambles. But I will continue, still:

Jay stated concerning J.N.D. Kelly:

Though not a determining factor in canonicity, Protestants often appeal to
St. Jerome as if he were a stalwart defender of the Masoretic text and the
"Protestant canon"--a kind of proto-Luther, who stood against Rome on this
issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Jerome did learn
Hebrew from rabbis in Jerusalem and did doubt the canonicity of the
Deuterocanon, but St. Jerome was Pope St. Damasus' secretary and eventually
submitted to the Church. One can read all about this in noted Protestant
patristics scholar J.N.D. Kelly's book on Jerome. One
can see very clearly from his preface to Judith what he thought about submitting
to the judgment of the Church

Kelly also says, however:

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine."(J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55)

Interestingly, Kelly agrees that Jerome had a two-fold view of the canon: Dogmatic canon and Ecclesiastical canon:

Jay concludes:

So no, St. Jerome is no ammo for Protestants--in fact, he's a testimony against them

There's really no consensus on Jerome...on the one hand, some interpretations of his Prologue to Judith suggest the Nicene Council merely considered Judith as possibly being canon, on the other, Jerome affirmed a two-fold view of canon (a view of canon that was later also affirmed by Carthage and Augustine). Further, the First Council of Nicea may have discussed Scriptural canon, but they never actually declared it...so even if Jerome affirmed Judith, you can't demonstrate that he affirmed all of the Apocrypha, especially when he refers to some of them as "fables", and even referring to Judith as a Hebrew "story". Some have suggested that if Jerome was submitting to the Church on the canon, he mistakenly referred to Nicea when he really meant Laodicea...and we already know Laodicea had a different canon than Trent. Let me reiterate: contradicting accounts of canon are not Romish proof against the Protestant...it is a damning historical record that shames Rome...of course, this is where Jay will want to appeal to the authority of Trent over any one Father of group of Fathers...if you're confused, please refer to Rule #2 (which, of course, should be Rule #1).

It's also important to note that in Jerome's Vulgate, he separated the Apocrypha from the rest of the Scriptures by way of marking them with an obelus. In his preface to Daniel, he states:

Therefore, I have shown these things to you as a difficulty of Daniel, which among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three young men, nor the fables of Bel and the dragon, which we, because they are spread throughout the whole world, have appended by banishing and placing them after the spit (or "obelus"), so we will not be seen among the unlearned to have cut off a large part of the scroll.

Again, I'm not appealing to Jerome for the sake of bolstering my canon...this is an indictment against your first point...a point, I might add, that has been absolutely destroyed.

Jay said:

And it doesn't matter that Trent was divided. Nicea was divided over Christ's divinity. What has any of that got to do with you and your particular reformed sect?

Like I keep saying, it points to the fact that "historicity" is essentially meaningless when trying to bolster your doctrine. Nicea was divided, but Nicea's decision carries authority because its authority is in conformity of Scripture. You appeal to history (sort of...I mean when it suits you...I mean, refer back to Rule #2) on the one hand, but Trent bares out that the approved canon was not historical given that the West was following in the tradition of Jerome and appealed to him. Trent was an innovation, and your interpretation is an innovation as well, attested to by those that appealed to him at Trent (and before).

Jay said:

Yes, Pope St. Gregory the Great doubted 1 Maccabees. So what? Craig seems to think this undermines ecumenical councils. How? No one holds a Pope's private writings are infallible. This is his moral commentary on Job. For Catholics, no ecumenical council dealt with the canon until Florence

The only decree that carried authority from Florence was Laetentur Coeli, which was about union between the Greeks and Latins...not the canon. Seeing that the council convened in 1439, in reference to Trent, it lends as much historical value as Leave it to Beaver does to American Idol. Further, I'm not sure how it is that Gregory the Great, a Pope, while expounding upon the Scriptures was able to err...perhaps he wasn't employing this teaching from the seat, rather, a lounge chair...maybe the latrine?

Jay said:

I already discussed this. "Deutero-canon" means secondary canon. It does not have the importance and meat, if you will, of the Gospels or epistles. But it has prophecies of Christ! Don't be unbelieving, Craig, but believe. Craig doesn't understand this because he is working on sola scriptura presuppositions. He has grasped at straws to find some hole in Catholic canonicity, but has found none, and ignored the ridiculous, nonsensical position that is his little reformed sect.

My point was that I could very well affirm the usefulness of the Apocrypha while giving it a secondary status to the Gospels and Epistles...but how is it that if I don't do this the canon I do acknowledge is nullified? Non-sequitur much?

In any event, I'll leave it to our readers to see if I've merely "grasped at straws".

Jay said:

I demonstrated already how, within St. Paul's own writings, there are distinctions and levels of importance, where St. Paul said his own words of advice were not of God, but of himself. Would that make it therefore useless, or erroneous? No. The Jews also operated this way with the Torah having a preeminence the prophets didn't have.

Wait, so now you will appeal to the Jews? That division of authority was based on their Masoretic text...which you reject. Selective appeals abound with the Jay.

More importantly, you would have much trouble establishing an entire system of traditions and secondary writings based on a singular command that Paul says is from himself.

I do accept what Paul says as coming from God, not Paul's mere opinion. He is distinguishing his command from what was revealed in the Law...he recognized this as being revelatory, and he concludes his section concerning marriage/divorce/virginity by saying:

⁴⁰ But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God.

Here Paul says this is his opinion...and he also believes he has the Spirit of God. Which is to say, he's not going to command things grounded in himself, rather, the Spirit of God who has given him revelation on this.

Jay concludes:

Agreed. The problem, oh Van Tillian, is that there is no a priori argument for your canon (which you need in this position) over ours. Historical analysis is unavoidable and that's where Van Til fails here. Please authenticate your a-historical canon for us, a priori.

I will. That will be my included in my summary conclusion which will be an end to Point 1. I think this post is sufficiently long, and I believe your assertions have been dealt with thoroughly. Whether you begin with an appeal to history, you really just appeal to authority...and that authority has been demonstrated to be contradictory...not to mention, ahistorical.

Installment Two: Rebuttal to Jay Dyer

2009-08-05T16:05:00.032-04:00

Jay made his rebuttal which you can find here.

I'd like to do some house cleaning initially:

Jay pointed out:

First, we have no citation from where Craig got the quotation of Origen.

I came across the quote while perusing CCEL. I found it here under section IV below #47 (Archbold Alexander's work entitled: Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained). If you follow the link, you will notice that there is no context given for the quote, so I took it as relaying Origen's view. Seeing that I have Eusebius' History of the Church, I should have double-checked the context.

Shortly after reading Jay's response I came across a section on Origen from Holy Scripture where William Webster discussed Origen's view of the canon...Webster demonstrated that Origen, in fact, accepted the Septuigint...to say he thought very highly of the Septuigint would be an understatement. Mea culpa.

It is telling, though, that Origen recognized the Jews accepted what is part of the Protestant OT canon as authoritative and rejected the Apocrypha. I'm not going into a case for the Protestant canon in this post, but it is worthy to note.

A google search for this only turns up Craig's post.I'm not saying he made it up. Rather, as is standard fashion amongst reformed polemicists (though TF is an exception), I'm sure he cut and pasted it from some reformed work, probably James White or William Webster.

As I noted, Webster actually agreed with Jay and he provided a thorough substantiation of that (See Holy Scriptures, Vol II pgs 336-337). I should have sourced it, but trying a different search engine may have helped Jay out. A Yahoo search does bring up the CCEL link first, not my post. One wonders, if Jay has read Webster, why he guessed I may have done a cut and paste from him? In any event, it is immaterial to the debate (since quoting is typically smiled upon...I will source each item that I quote from now on) and appears to be an underhanded attempt to cast aspersions on myself and William Webster.

Concerning Cyril's canon, Jay expresses skepticism:

we don't know what Melito's canon was other than what is reproduced in Eusebius

Jay's selective skepticism doesn't hold water. Although Melito's works are largely gone, we know by way of reference from others in early Church history that he was a proficient writer whose works were widely accessible. Why arbitrarily throw out Eusebius' record when Melito's works were readily available to him?

Jay said:

Notice anything missing, Craig? Remember, this argument is supposed to be that key Church Fathers accepted the Protestant canon of 66 books. Where is Esther?

Unfortunately, that's not my argument in the least. I'm contesting Jay's first point where the implication is that Rome's canon is historical...doesn't the fact that Esther was missing from Athanasius put a little ping in Jay's historical armor? He's the one appealing to history, after all. When I quote a Church Father, I'm doing it as a historical witness, not an appeal to authority.

Jay said:

Next, we look at Craig's use of Melito of Sardis. The same problems arise here, since Melito omits Esther

Again, doesn't this actually come back to bite Jay? I'm not arguing for my canon based on the Fathers, rather, I'm pointing out that his appeal to history is empty...and it looks like he agrees with me.

Jay continues:

Also, it is disputed as to what this "Wisdom" is. F.F. Bruce himself fumbles a bit, later contradicting his claim that this is certainly a word for Proverbs. Notice that Melito has already listed Proverbs and Ecclesiastes! Duh. Had Craig been more careful in his reading of Bruce's book on the canon (granting, of course, that he did actually read it, and didn't cut and paste from some reformed writer), he would have seen Bruce contradict this claim that "Wisdom" here is always necessarily Proverbs.

Even if Bruce "fumbles", it is noteworthy that there are corroborating sources that state Melito's term "Wisdom" doesn't refer to a separate book, rather, other translations render the quote: "Proverbs of Solomon, which is wisdom". Archbold Alexander makes reference to Rufin and Pineda, "a learned Romanist" that agree. (see footnote 18 from this link).

Jay said:

So why are you quoting a bunch of apostates on your view as if they are reliable on the canon?

Again, my view isn't that the Fathers are authoritative...I was trying (now with Jay's help) to point out his view is ahistorical. He assisted me by pointing out concerning Cyril:

No Apocalypse. No proof for you of anything. Furthermore, if you read the Catechetical Lectures, you will find that this great Eastern Bishop believed everything I do, all of which you call a superstitious and idolatrous system, as well as did St. Athanasius.

Cyril believed everything Jay does? He just pointed out that Cyril left out John's Apocalypse. To top it off, Cyril also makes a similar appeal that contemporary RC'ers do (as Jay quoted):

Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes.

Hmmm. His canon was handed down to him by the Church. I wonder, is Jay"trench(ing) upon its statutes"? This is not devastating to me, this should devastate Romanists. Even if I was reading Cyril incorrectly when he used the term Apocrypha, the historical record demonstrates (as in the example of Cyril) that Trent broke with history by including books rejected in the past and even rejecting books that had been previously accepted. That's why, even though the Council of Carthage may have only been non-authoritative, it says something that the recognized canon is no longer recognized.

To top it all off, Jay continually appeals to the Septuigint when it not preferred by Rome. Jerome's Latin Vulgate rendition of the Old Testament is not based on the Septuigint...as pointed out, Jerome rejected it and went to the Hebrew Scriptures, even saying:

What the Saviour says was written down was certainly written down. The Septuigint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples. As then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Macabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read the two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.
-Jerome as quoted in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pg 160

I wonder why Jay continues to appeal to the Septuigint when Trent declared the Vulgate translation from the Hebrew OT "is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons and exposition"...which is to say, I would assume, that the Vulgate is of higher authority than the Septuigint:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church. Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Council of Trent, Fourth Session

Please keep bringing up the Septuigint and pointing out it was, historically-speaking, the version preferred by the West...only to be usurped by Jerome's Latin Vulgate after the Reformation.

It's a fact that Jerome's view of the deuterocanonicals was a view shared by many Christians. Many of them were part of the discussions at Trent. Cajetan (who was part of Trent), who was used to test Luther on his teachings, also agreed with Jerome:

For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred docors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgement, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see they way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.
-Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan, as quoted in Holy Scriptures Vol II pg. 369

Interestingly, for all the claims to historicity, Trent was pretty divided over the canonicity of the Apocrypha...one would think with a long line of tradition these learned fellows would know what's canon and what isn't (see here, and here).

It was not an uncommon practice of separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon. It was done with approval of Pope Leo X by Cardinal Ximenes' Biblia Complutensia. Lest anyone think this was "new", Rufinus also considered the Apocrypha good for edifying believers, though not canonical...and he credits this conclusion to the tradition handed down:

And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.....
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha.' These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.
-Rufinus, NPNF2, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, section 36

Perhaps the most devastating case against the "historical" nature of Rome's canon comes from Gregory the Great...it also destroys any semblance of infallibility with reference to Councils and Popes....Gregory the Great, in his commentary on Job, lends authoritative teaching pertaining to doctrine and morals...he's not merely writing an opinion, he is teaching while in office of Pope. In reference to 1 Macc. 6.46 he says:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical (emphasis mine), yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.
-Pope Gregory the Great, An Exposition on the Book of Blessed Job, Vol II Book XIX, sec 34

Here's the passage from 1 Maccabees 6:43-47 so no one misses that POPE Gregory was saying 1 Macc isn't authoritative:

43 And Eleazar, the son of Saura, saw one of the beasts harnessed with the king's harness: and it was higher than the other beasts; and it seemed to him that the king was on it: 44 And he exposed himself to deliver his people, and to get himself an everlasting name. 45 And he ran up to it boldly in the midst of the legion, killing on the right hand, and on the left, and they fell by him on this side and that side. 46 And he went between the feet of the elephant, and put himself under it: and slew it, and it fell to the ground upon him, and he died there. 47 Then they seeing the strength of the king and the fierceness of his army, turned away from them.

Uh-oh....that was pretty devastating.

Having said all of the above, Jay's 1st point was undone by himself without me having to research anything. He said:

St. Athanasius affords the Protestant no help, and in fact, St. Athanasius frequently quotes the deterocanonical (sic) books, even if he viewed them as having a kind of lesser status (which is even fine in our theology)

Wait a minute...if I accept the usefulness of the Apocrypha, yet consider it's authority to be lesser than the Hebrew canon, then would I have the correct canon? I'm confused as to what Jay's first point actually was. It appears that Protestants could very well fall within the pale of Trent's canon if Jay is correct...which is to say, my canon is correct (by Jay's standard). Of course, he doesn't really believe I have the right canon...so it should be clear his assertion doesn't really rest on the historical record of Church Fathers from the past, it rests on the authority of Trent. Clearly this is just a circular argument on his part since, in a debate on sola scriptura, the very thing to be proven is whose authority is actually correct...Jay simply assumes Romish authority (which, as I've shown, is contradictory). If one's rule of faith is to be truly authoritative, it must be self-authenticating.

First Response to Jay Dyer: Why I've Never Been A Romanist, and Never Will Be.

2009-07-30T20:19:00.028-04:00

Jay Dyer of Nicene Truth posted a challenge to Calvinists via facebook a couple of days ago. He specifically listed 9 points for Calvinists to grapple with. I decided to throw my hat into the ring. Instead of doing it via facebook, I suggested we use our blogs.

Why did I throw my hat in?
1) I think Jay poses questions many Christians aren't sure what to do with...essentially, these sorts of things could disrupt their faith.
2) I've had a number of friends convert to Roman Catholicism, two of them being close friends and one of them actually had been a Calvinist of the Van Tilian variety...that is to say, I shared many of the same beliefs. I don't like seeing my friends leaving biblical faith to embrace a false gospel.

If you're familiar with Jay, you know that he doesn't follow the identical formula of pop-papal apologetics. He's quite well-read and he's actually been a Calvinist. For a time, he was enrolled at Bahnsen Theological...which means he is versed in Presuppositional apologetics. He has immersed himself in theologians of the East and Latin versions of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy...so in terms of your average Catholic, he's not.

Here are my credentials:
I was an average student who got his B.A. in English...since then, I thought about going to seminary and I thought about getting a Masters in Philosophy...I figure that's just about as good as actually doing something. Oh yeah, and I enjoy Miller High Life. In my free time, I do read, but I'm not a voracious reader. Most of my learning comes from Bible study and instruction I've received in church....so in terms of your average Calvinist, that's what I be.

Rather than hit on all of Jay's points in one sitting, we've agreed to take one item at a time with up to 3 exchanges and concluding remarks...we may change that, but these parameters seem like they would keep the discussion from becoming a monster. I'd like this exchange to be readable, and not so self-involved that someone just getting into it would be confused...however, the nature of the discussion is such that it may very well be confusing...I simply want to keep non-essential confusion at bay.

With no further ado, here's the first point Jay laid out:
1. Sola Scriptura cannot be the foundation of true religion because the Protestant Bible has the wrong canon and therefore sola scriptura cannot be true (since it presupposes a correct canon). The process of the formation of the canon in the early church as described by myriads of Protestant scholars makes it also impossible, as well as a-historical.

In response I'd like to say:
We do have the correct canon of Scripture.

As far as "myriads" of Protestant scholars that would say otherwise...I'm betting you're going to trot out your partial quotes from the likes of F.F. Bruce to "bolster" your argument.

There is a great historical argument to be made against the inclusion of the deutero-canonicals which is attested to by early Christians. Their use was not in doctrinal value, they were "ecclesiastical" and non-authoritative. The canon was largely settled very early in the Church and the apocrypha was read by some, though not considered as being canon most.

It seems Jerome rejected the authority of the apocrypha:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

This was even the practice of the Latin church until the time of the Reformation. This is attested to by Cajetan:
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Origen agrees that the Old Testament canon was the same as the Jews (which is the same my Bible has): “We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.”
Athanasius listed the OT canon thusly:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 48Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.”
^{Melito of Sardis had a smaller canon than Rome as well. Taken from a letter he wrote:
"...I learned accurately the the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras"

The book called "Wisdom" is not a reference to the Greek apocryphal book, it was custom to refer to Proverbs that way, which is attested to by Eusebius, Hegessipus, and Irenaeus (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture pg 71). Also note the significant lackage of most of the apocryphal writings in Melito's list.

Of course, the above are from the East, the West tended to accept a wider range of books as canonical, so historically-speaking, if Jay wants to say I'm being "ahistorical" by accepting the Protestant canon, I wonder what makes it "ahistorical"? The East, being in closer proximity to Palestine, accepted the Jewish Scriptures and largely rejected apocryphal writings whereas the West was not so scrupulous. Which Church's canon is more historical and how do you come to that conclusion? He may appeal to Trent, but that was relatively recent in Christian history. To claim Protestants are ahistorical is anachronistic when it is clear that "fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianus and Ephiphanius was that the deutero-canonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines as quoted by William Webster in Holy Scripture Vol II pg 341)

Cyril of Jerusalem went so far as to say that the apocrypha should not even be read privately let alone in the Christian assembly. Appealing to history can be a confusing thing for a Catholic, especially when it appears most of history favors the canon that appears in the average Protestant's Bible...feel free to look at other compilations of canon from history to get a flavor.}^{Even if Papists do have the "correct" canon, I'm not sure what good it can be doing them:
Council of Trent
Rules Concerning Prohibited Books
IV. Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.
If Jay were a more faithful Catholic, I think his opening assertion should go more like this:
Scripture cannot be the foundation of any true religion because reading Scripture is the equivalent of running with scissors after a long session of huffing rubber cement.
It's interesting that the very council that declared the deutero-canonicals to be Scripture is the same one that restricted not only the dissemination of Scripture, but also the reading of the very Scriptures declared to be canon...it's almost as if the authority of this council didn't really believe their authority offered much in the way of certainty to the faithful: "Here's your Bible! Stop looking!"
Historically-speaking, the Council of Trent was a break from history...it would appear the canon of schismatic Trent is more ahistorical than the Lutheran and Reformed church. You could say the religion of Trent is younger than Protestantism.}

John Holdren

2009-07-28T09:15:00.003-04:00

This is likely not news to people reading my blog, but it is worthy still to mention. John Holdren is our informally dubbed "Science Czar"...and Holdren has very disturbing things he's put in print. When someone is willing to put something out there for public scrutiny, they are true believers...this isn't somebody just wrestling with the implications of their beliefs...this is somebody that has dedicated himself to these ideas.

Taken from Ecoscience published in 1977 but found in this essay:

1. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

2. A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

3. If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

Catholic Nurse Allegedly Forced to Assist in Abortion

2009-07-23T21:45:00.004-04:00

Mount Sinai forced Mrs. DeCarlo to watch the doctor remove the bloody arms and legs of the child from its mother's body by with forceps, and then after the surgery, to view the bloody body parts in the specimen cup, put saline in the cup, and take it to the specimen area," the injunction request explains.

This happened even though according to the hospital's own protocols, the abortion was not so urgent that it would have required her assistance, and there was more than enough time to summon another nurse, the complaint said.
A hospital spokesman declined to comment in a WND telephone call seeking information, instructing that the request for a statement be submitted via e-mail. An e-mail response said the hospital wouldn't comment.
The ADF explained that the hospital has known of the nurse's religious objections to participating in the death of a living unborn baby since 2004. Nevertheless, they ordered her to participate, threatening her with disciplinary measures if she refused, she allged. The hospital then dramatically cut her on-call assignments after she refused to sign a statement promising to participate in future abortions.

Here's the story.

Quote of the Day

2009-07-13T12:52:00.005-04:00

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg (July 7th, 2009)

Sanctifying the Marriage Bed

2009-06-30T13:14:00.003-04:00

This was brought up by the Bayly Blog...so I don't pretend this is original. In fact, perhaps I should just reproduce was David wrote. See it here.

Mark Driscoll is a prominent minister. He is staunchly Calvinistic and missional. These things, among others, are highly commendable. However, what he fails miserably on (which most evangelicals do) is the role of sex in marriage. Mostly Christians follow a wordly standard of sex where "anything goes....as long as you're married!" Just a generation ago (maybe two), most Protestants opposed birth control. Given the largeness of many Christian families, it was clear that sex was celebrated as being pleasurable (why else get pregnant if it's boring?) as well as procreative. We, following in our parent's footsteps, have divorced fruitfulness from the pleasure aspect of the marriage bed.

There are some who've described Driscoll's teaching on Song of Solomon as the "pornification of the pulpit"...I hate to agree (because I like some aspects of Driscoll), but what I'm finding out so far leads me to agree. Song of Solomon is one of those books many just don't know what to do with...thankfully, the elders at my Church understand and we are currently going through the book. Why not listen to the first and second sermon? I already know most of you are interested in sex...what does a fruitful, pleasurable marriage bed look like and how does it relate to Redemption? The sermons are well worth listening to.

Christian Pacifism?

2009-06-25T23:19:00.005-04:00

The question of whether or not it is appropriate to use physical force as a means to restrain evil on this earth has long been a point of disagreement in the Church. In practicality, the answer to that question determines how we respond to a broad range of scenarios. Is it appropriate to defend oneself from an attacker? Are we permitted to use force for the protection of others? Can a Christian in good conscience serve in the armed forces? Should Christians in positions of political power advocate the use of capital punishment or is it even appropriate to erect prisons to hold criminals? The implications of this issue continue to mount.

In every era of Church history there have been those who would fall under the category of Christian Pacifists. They have, for the most part, remained a minority of the overall body of Christ, but their claims must be dealt with in every generation because of the broad consequences acceptance of their doctrine necessarily brings.

The ideology of Christian Pacifism seems to be mostly derived from a rigid interpretation of a handful of statements made by Jesus during his Sermon on the Mount. It clearly has no basis in the Old Testament, in the epistles of the New Testament, or even in many of the statements of Jesus. First, if you take the position that Christ encouraged pacifism in every respect, you will have great difficulty reconciling this with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament. Christ never distanced himself from the Hebrew Scriptures or their portrayal of God. In fact, He claimed to be the fulfillment of them and validated them in multiple ways. Christ is one with the Father, so for our faith to make sense we can’t resign ourselves to the view that Christ is in disagreement with the Father or that Christ is like a new version of God (new and upgraded version 2.0). It’s also untenable to suggest that somehow the Old Testament just got it all wrong on this issue and Jesus was simply too polite to mention it. I’m convinced that a careful and prayerful reading of the Bible makes it easier to reconcile any and all seeming contradictions.

Jesus said that we should love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully use us. We should not resist an evil person seeking to do us harm and should instead turn the other cheek. If someone comes to steal my cloak, I am not to prevent them from taking my tunic as well. Certainly all Christians are called to follow the Lord’s instruction. However, it is a mistake to take these teachings as promoting a Pacifist ideology. The commonality in all of these scenarios described by Christ, in which an individual is told not to resist, is that the individual himself is the intended victim and the threat is non-fatal. In other words, if a Christian is being insulted, robbed, injured or persecuted in some way, he should not retaliate. What often happens is that a Pacifist will take these few statements from Christ in his Sermon on the Mount to mean that we should not use violence in any case, even in the protection of others when they are the intended victims of an attacker or in the just punishment of such attacks. However, we find in Luke 17:2 our Lord states that if someone offends a “little one” (or “leads a little one to sin” as it is stated in other gospels) it would be better for that person to have a millstone tied around their neck and to be cast into the sea. Despite these words of our Lord, some of the more extreme anarcho-pacifist Christians are even opposed to simply imprisoning criminals, let alone executing them.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that we must consider how those first century hearers of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount would have understood his words:

Does anyone suppose that Our Lord's hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim? I at any rate think it impossible they could have so understood Him. I think it equally impossible that they supposed Him to mean that the best way of bringing up a child was to let it hit its parents whenever it was in a temper, or, when it had grabbed at the jam, to give it the honey also. I think the meaning of the words was perfectly clear— “Insofar as you are simply an angry man who has been hurt, mortify your anger and do not hit back”—even, one would have assumed that insofar as you are a magistrate struck by a private Person, a parent struck by a child, a teacher by a scholar, a sane man by a lunatic, or a soldier by the public enemy, your duties may be very different, different because [there] may be then other motives than egoistic retaliation for hitting back.
—from “Why I Am Not a Pacifist” (The weight of Glory)

As is well known, Pacifists are also vehemently opposed to military service, claiming it to be contrary to Christian teaching. If serving in the military as one who occasionally must wield deadly force on behalf of the state were truly immoral, we must ask ourselves why John the Baptist didn’t say as much when he was asked by the Roman soldiers what they should do. Instead he tells them they should be content with their wages and deal honestly with others. If the Pacifist is correct, why did Christ speak so highly of the Centurion, saying, “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”? If the very act of military service was a sin, would not Jesus have addressed that sin directly instead of presenting this soldier as an example of great faith?

The Pacifist's image of the meek and mild Christ is nothing more than a caricature based on elevating certain of His statements while ignoring many others. At the close of the Final Supper, Jesus has this exchange with his disciples:

And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.” -Luke 22:35-38

Clearly there is a time to bear the sword and a time to put it away. There are other statements that I could mention that counter the view that Christ is purely a Pacifist, but I won’t belabor the point.

To be sure; Christ is the Prince of Peace. His ultimate mission is to bring about a Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace which will know no war and will be free of all conflict. However, this purpose is yet future, and was certainly not His intention for His First Coming. He even said as much:

“Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.” -Luke 12:51

For now, Christ makes it clear that we live in a fallen world in which war and violence is a part. Anytime Christians have to deal with such issues it must be done with sober consideration and prayer. Violent action should only be taken by a Christian insofar as Justice demands it and there is no better course available.

Atheist Fist-Biter of the Week:

2009-06-22T23:18:00.008-04:00

The award goes to....Jeff Olsson!

Jeff took the time to "dissect" an entry over at the Bayly Blog...like other Secular Jihadists, he lacks basic reading skills and presents partial truths that some may describe as "dishonest". When cheeky ploys like these don't work, he employs oft used phrases that would make any man squirm under pressure...things like:

You go Girl
you are a fanatic
You quote scripture like it's equivalent to scientific fact. It's not, it a bunch of stuff that was made up by men living in the desert 1900 years ago.
You are a fanatic.
Many, many Christians do not agree with you and neither do I
Wow
Suddenly our entire conversation comes into focus.

Taken independently, these words may appear weak...but don't be fooled. When in the hands of a man of stealth, quick wit, and a self-published book which boasts footnotes to wikipedia...dangerous weapons. Don't mess with Jeff.

It may be worthwhile to take your time and read our exchange. Dishonesty abounds when it comes to the internet...not just with atheists, either...it is a helpful reminder to take your time when reading someone before trying to "refute" him, or writing him off. If you're going to take a step further than refutation and call someone's character into question...be ready to back up what you say as well, otherwise you may find yourself dangerously close to libel.

Do I Praise the Killing of George Tiller?

2009-06-08T08:21:00.004-04:00

There has been confusion on the part of some people as to what it is I'm saying exactly when it comes to the death of a notorious hit-man by another hit-man.

I continue to drag my foot on circumstances that, to me, seem undeniably to be an act of God. Remember, an act of God is not necessarily acted out in pure ways. Think on Samson:

Judges 14:1-4
¹ Now Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines. ² So he went up and told his father and mother, saying, “I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore, get her for me as a wife.”
³ Then his father and mother said to him, “Is there no woman among the daughters of your brethren, or among all my people, that you must go and get a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?”
And Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she pleases me well.”
⁴ But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

It is clear that God did not suspend the Law for Samson...intermarriage with unbelievers was wrong (and still is). Also keep in mind that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson a number of times...he did great things, but also managed to do them sinfully. But it is clear from Judges that God was sovereignly in control of even Samson's sin. God was seeking an occasion to harass the Philistines.

Consider Tiller's path:
Hardened abortionist. Excommunicated by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a Bible-believing and evangelical denomination), then joined the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the term "Evangelical" is a misnomer: the ELCA is an ultra liberal denomination that approves of abortion). God judged Tiller via the LCMS...but Tiller chose not to take the steps of restoration that Church discipline offers. This man continued invading the secret place where children are fearfully and wonderfully knit together...this man, judged by a Bible-believing Church's authority, was then taken out in a place he felt most safe. A place where he had a measure of protection and affirmation...a place that pretends to be a place of worship to the Triune God. God judged George Tiller last week. His blood stained the entry-way of Reformation Lutheran Church. A man who had blood-guilt shed his blood in a Church which approves of his blood-thirsty trade. Certainly this occassion should give reason to fear to all who practice lawlessness. Your sin will find you out, even if the whole world approves of your actions.

Do I approve of men assassinating abortionists? No. I'm not pronouncing judgement on the man accused, we don't have any evidence nor have I been called to be on the panel of his jury. Why don't I approve of assassinating abortionists? Is it because I'm a pacifist? Do I see legitimacy to our government sanctioning the slaughter of children? Do I think the pro-life movement is correct that we simply must follow peaceful and legal means, and all others are to be decried?

Here's a sermon delivered by my Pastor, David Bayly. It's a good read, though I don't agree with every tid-bit.

Here's a snippet:

But what Dr. Tiller’s killer did which Phinehas did not do was to kill against the will of the nation’s civil authority. It was an act of rebellion posing as an act of justice. The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch. His was not an act of saving babies or of executing justice. Other men will continue Dr. Tiller’s practice. A bucket of water taken from the sea will not create a hole in the ocean. Others will fill where Dr. Tiller left off. Abortion will proceed because, and this is vital to say, abortion is blessed by the law of the land. The logic of Dr. Tiller’s killer is the logic of John Brown, of Absalom, of Ehud.

We don't know what the logic was of Tiller's assassin. I also do not believe Ehud acted wickedly, nor cowardly. Ehud's actions were sanctioned by God who called on His people to clear the land of the unbelieving occupiers. He didn't merely kill a branch, he went for the Big Kahuna. Then he rallied Israel to great victory. Aside from that proviso I offered,this portion of the sermon is precisely hitting the point on why we are not to kill abortionists.

May God grant repentance to this nation, may the offense of abortion be rolled back. If not, may God raise up other authorities to deal with this. For now, we must view abortion in a way no one in the pro-life movement talks about: Judgement against our nation for not bowing to King Jesus. As awful as it may sound, abortion is cutting off the generations of unbelief. The world is passing judgement on itself and we see "invading hordes" crossing our borders and procreating.

The U.S. may not need to be attacked militarily to wipe it off the face of the planet. All it takes are procreating foreigners while the citizens continue to slaughter their own.

Christians Continue to "Save Face"

2009-06-04T23:47:00.006-04:00

In case you haven't noticed...most Christian pro-lifers are trying to save face with the world when it comes to the killing of George Tiller. Obviously, I have my own opinions on it, and happen to look at this situation a bit more graciously than the others that are trying to maintain the facade of "legitimacy" to the pro-life movement.

"Christians can't just go around killing people! We must do this legally!" That's the mantra, or something like it. They seem to think the more violent element within the anti-abortion movement are poorly thought out and rest on nothing more than blood-thirst and anger.

Think about it for a minute: If abortion is murder, and we are killing over 1 million babies a year...then we are talking about legalized mass murder...we're talking more deaths than previous genocides. This isn't at all like killing when authorities tell you not to preach the gospel. In those cases, it's clear: you preach the gospel and trust God.

But what do you do when you see a man ruthlessly beating another to death? What is our duty when it comes to protecting our neighbor? Is God please with the faith of Cain which says "Am I my brother's keeper?" This is the point those in favor of using force argue...it's not terrorism. It's actually principled in some cases. Take Paul Hill for example. Hill took the life of abortionist John Britton in 1994. He did not consider himself a vigilante. In fact, he wrote about his reasoning in "Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn". You can read the full text online. Here's a snippet of his reasoning:

Not only does the Moral Law require the means necessary for defending the innocent, this duty comes directly from God, and cannot be removed by any human government. The duty to defend your own or your neighbor's child, thus, is inalienable. When the government forbids this defense, the people “. . .must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). The Scriptures teach that when the government requires a sin of omission (as it has by forbidding the defense of our unborn children), we must obey God rather than the government. As a
consequence, you do not need the state's permission before defending your unborn child. No man-made law can remove the individual's duty to defend his own or his neighbor's child.

Does this sound stark-ravingly mad?

Now consider the irony of immediately judging a man accused (not actually convicted) of murder on the basis of said individual "taking the law into his own hands" and acting lawlessly. Remember, we don't know much of anything other than that Tiller is dead..seems a bit inconsistent, doesn't it?

"Dr." George Tiller: The "Martyr"

2009-05-31T21:10:00.007-04:00

The news is buzzing about the death of one of the last practitioners of late term abortions. George Tiller was shot dead in church today as he was ushering...his wife was in the choir.

The news outlets have some interesting takes on this incident, such as this one from Yahoo!

Police did not release a motive for the shooting. But the doctor's violent death was the latest in a string of shootings and bombings over two decades directed against abortion clinics, doctors and staff.

A nice, objective summary, eh? This is the "latest" in a string of blood-thirsty deaths perpetrated by those crazy anti-abortionists...and just when was the last shooting? Well, let's look several paragraphs later in the Yahoo article:

The last killing of an abortion doctor was in October 1998 when Dr. Barnett Slepian was fatally shot in his home in a suburb of Buffalo, N.Y. A militant abortion opponent was convicted of the murder.

So it's been nearly 11 years? I wonder how many children have died at the hands of Tiller in those 11 years?

Sadly, the wife of the peddlar of death said:

"This is particularly heart-wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace."

Of course, the womb has been considered a place of peace for Christians throughout history. Every work day, Tiller invaded the quiet place where children are being knit together...fearfully and wonderfully...and ripped infants to shreds.

George Tiller was a member of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, KS. Not surprisingly, it is an ELCA congregation. I decided to send a message to the senior pastor. I will reproduce it below:

I pray your church will no longer harbor those that kill children. I do not approve of vigillante justice, but neither do I approve of churches that allow unrepentant murderers full membership and the freedom to serve.

While George Tiller's murderer will have to face justice and lose many night's worth of sleep...there are many infants that will be able to rest better, tucked safely in their mother's womb as God intended.

Am I No More Than A Turtle-Head?

2009-05-30T18:54:00.005-04:00

From time to time I am known to enter the irrational world of atheism. It amazes me how often atheists concoct new arguments that refute previous assertions that they’ve already made…this should not be surprising, men suppress the truth of the Triune God and will embrace lies and out-right bondage so as to avoid the easy yoke of Christ.

The most militant form of atheism is also the most easily refuted: Atheistic Materialism.

From this worldview, reality is composed of matter in motion. Reality is "observable", "quantifiable". So absurd is this reductionistic worldview that I’ve come across men who insist that if you cannot “describe” something, it is not a coherent or “positive” ontology.

What is meant by “describing something positively”? I’m glad you asked! It means that you must be able to describe something in terms of physical reality. If it is not defined in terms of a physicalist worldview, it is not “positive”. There are many things glaringly wrong about this strategy that it should be painfully clear to all involved in this sort of a discussion.

Let me give you just two examples, though there are many other ways of dismantling this “argument”.

It Relies On A Fallaciously Circular Argument.
Simply put, when we are discussing ontology, we in the arena of metaphysics. The atheist that is demanding we define God, or our evidence for Him, in terms of a physicalist (i.e. materialist) worldview; he is merely assuming the thing he’s supposed to be arguing. He isn't "proving" anything.

Necessarily, when we discuss something such as God’s ontology, or evidence for His existence, we are discussing reality, which is to say: Metaphysics. The only way the atheist’s standard carries water is if he is first correct about his assumption…but seeing the assumption hasn’t been argued and is the very thing we are supposed to be discussing, he’s done no more than restate his prejudice that he doesn’t believe in the existence of anything spiritually based.

Ontological Monism: Reductio Ad Absurdum:
In asking the Christian to define God (or prove Him) in terms of the physical world he is also saying any ontology must be defined through the physical world.

If this is to be true, how are we to meaningfully define the ontology of humanity? Primarily, we are physical (according to the materialist).

That’s it.

We’re physical.

Cue Olivia Newton-John.

Once the materialist begins classifying (ie differentiating) material objects, he is not able to maintain his materialist standard. How do you get diversity out of oneness?

For atheistic materialists, men are not primarily moral or rational. We are physical. Ontologically speaking, we are no different than a rock, a spider, gum stuck to a shoe, or feces. The absurd outcome of atheistic materialism is ontological monism (“all is one”), which makes differentiation and classification essentially meaningless.

It also destroys value judgements (e.g.: morality). These terms cannot be "meaningfully" defined according to atheistic materialism.

If an atheistic materialist grants that he is an ontological monist (and logically, we’ve already demonstrated this), then how can he say things like pedophilia, necrophilia, or beastiality are wrong? These are value-judgments about relationships between physical objects. Appealing to morality as if it has some inherent authority over matter in motion contradicts the assumed physicalist worldview.

Summing It Up:

A rejection of the Triune God always, absolutely always, results in a destruction of meaning. Christians understand that God is essentially Triune. He is not primarily one, and secondarily three…He is ultimately both. A rejection of the Christian God will result in monism or a pluralism whereby unity can never be achieved. This is the history of the world. The rise and fall of families, of churches, and nations.

Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller)

2009-05-24T22:34:00.004-04:00

I was perusing the website of a PCA church in Katy, TX. On it, Pastor Fred Greco posted a blog making reference to the video below.

Sharing the gospel isn't restricted to what we say.

Is Ida The Missing Link?

2009-05-21T16:14:00.011-04:00

Here's an article from Chris Beard in the New Scientist (which is not an arm of Anwsers in Genesis):

What does Ida's anatomy tell us about her place on the family tree of humans and other primates? The fact that she retains primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do.

But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids – the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes – and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably.

So, Ida is not a "missing link" – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the "eighth wonder of the world".

The Missing Link Has Been Found!

2009-05-19T19:52:00.006-04:00

Just look at her! Simply amazing, isn't it? They really put the ritz on for her, too:

She was cleaned and set in polyester resin - and incredibly, was hung on a mystery German collector's wall for 20 years.

Polyester? Seriously? Guys, that was so 47 million years ago!

Obama: Notre Damn

2009-05-18T12:47:00.003-04:00

From the Bayly Blog:

As to the question of avoiding caricature of our opponents' position: I understand what this would mean for the proponents of slaughter. They would begin to acknowledge that those of us opposed to the slaughter of infants tucked into their mothers' wombs are, in fact, opposed to the slaughter of infants tucked into their mothers' wombs, rather than accusing us of wanting political power, wanting to enforce a religious view on others which is unique to our own faith, being in favor of women's bodies staying in bondage to a little predator freeloading off them for nine months, being brutes who hate women, and so on.

But consider this: precisely how would those of us seeking to defend those little ones from slaughter caricature the oppressors' position? What could we say that would be unfair?

That they are heartless? Cruel? Bloodthirsty? Lacking the milk of human compassion? Oppressors of the most innocent and vulnerable of our nation's citizens? Murderers? Mass murderers? Brutal mass murderers? Brutal mass murderers whose victims outnumber any other slaughter in the history of man?

The Fatherhood of God

2009-05-04T20:47:00.003-04:00

What comes to mind when you think of God as "Father"? For many, there may be some pain involved with a term like "father"...so God becomes a repugnant concept rejected altogether, while others prefer to redefine who God is in order to avoid the associations they have from a father who left indelible marks never to be forgotten. For those of you struggling with these spiritual scars, I recommend reading this entry.

There is a strong undercurrent within Reformed Christianity that willfully dismisses God's Fatherhood as "anthropomorphism"...I beg to differ, though 5 years ago I belonged to that lamentable camp. I've been a Calvinist since the age of nineteen...I'm just a couple of months shy of thirty, so I'd like to think I'm not writing this as a newbie Calvinist. Looking back to the days when I was a fired up, froth at the mouth predestinarian, I wonder what glory I saw in God's eternal election. I know what I saw, but somehow I divorced God's predestination from His Fatherhood. Yet today, I see the very sinews of conversion, the animation of faith, is the product of God's Fatherhood. Fatherhood is the defining characteristic of the Trinity. God is the Father of the Eternal Son, Jesus. To think that God would share a title of eternal glory with mere men should demonstrate how, at the very heart of God's being, He is a Father.

As Calvinists, we trumpet God's transcendence and mute the very aspect of God that makes our salvation secure. We think that God calls Himself a Father as if he was taking a human title to make Himself easier to understand...quite the opposite. God has conferred one of His titles upon mortals...as Calvin says himself:

It is customary…for God’s names to be transferred to creatures insofar as he exerts his power in them. Thus he himself is alone Lord and Father, but they are also called fathers and lords whom he dignifies with this honor.

Perusing the internet, or even books by theologians, God's transcendence seems to become an idol with little resemblance to the revelation of God we have in the Bible. One wonders how it is we can know an autonomous God who is in no way dependent upon the world...there are philosophical hoops men will jump through to make such a transcendent God reasonable to conclude...but even then, God remains a concept with little relevance to my life. Calvinists one hundred years ago knew far more than we do today. They knew that it is in God's Fatherhood that His transcendence and immanence are reconciled. We are but a faint reflection of the reality of Fatherhood...we may be fathers, but God alone is Father.

Our link to God is through His Son...through His Son we are sons. This is why fatherhood must be emphasized in our Churches. We try to dot our i's and cross our t's when it comes to the gospel, but manage to forget the very foundation that makes that gospel possible. How many Calvinists here can define these words at the drop of a hat:

Election
Regeneration
Conversion
Perseverance of the saints
Noahic covenant
Abrahamic covenant
Davidic covenant

How many know what significance fatherhood has with the above?

2 Timothy 1:15-18

2009-05-03T23:31:00.001-04:00

Sermon delieverd by Pastor David Bayly of Christ the Word, PCA in Toledo.

Antipelagian...Still Rave-A-Licious

2009-04-27T21:36:00.004-04:00

Masoni responded to this post of mine with a second installment. I had hoped to find a decent amount of time to reply, but that has not been possible...mea culpa.

First things first:

Oh, and P.S.: I sign things "M." out of pure laziness, but that sort of has become my identifier. I suppose I can live with it, although it might create confusion as to why my blog is named "Masoni Raves About" - people might think it'd be better as "M. Raves About."

Now that's good to know...I figured you were "Masoni"...but there are others listed as contributors...so I wasn't certain. It all makes sense now, especially the bit about the laziness *pot calling kettle, come in kettle*

As for my definition of atheism, I stop at the obvious: a lack of belief in a higher power.

Unfortunately, that is not just one independent truth...that is a metaphysical claim. I touched upon this briefly when I stated:

I would argue (though not in this post) that atheistic ethics leads logically where any individual chooses to go. The reason this is so is that no ethical conclusion from an atheistic worldview is justified...no conclusion is justified, therefore any conclusion is equally valid (and invalid) than another.

When we are discussing ethics, we are building from our respective metaphysics...yours is an atheistic one. Given that matter in motion can only demonstrate physical relationships, you're hard-pressed to develop a consistent approach to ethics.

There are atheists who believe a multitude of things, identify with the entire spectrum of ethical values, and subscribe to a plethora of philosophies and
schools of thought. For these reasons I contrast atheism and organized religions
like Christianity.

As I mentioned in my previous post, you opt to see pure diversity within atheism...then selectively choose to see Christianity as some undifferentiated monad of uniformity. That's not the case, but that is not my point. In fact, one of my points was that any ethical system developed by atheism is just as good as any other...they're all equally unjustifiable beliefs. Atheism's diversity isn't "proof" that it isn't religious, it's a demonstration of man's self-worship. Obviously each man will have his own opinion, he may be his own god or he'll incarnate his god through society or tyrannical government.

I meant that Christianity has uniform views on god, morals, etc. within any one sect of Christianity. All Roman Catholics subscribe to a set system of morals dictated by the Magisterium, all Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. follow their Church leadership in moral compasses and theology. I should have been clearer, but hopefully I've cleared things up.

Ha ha! Not cleared up at all...in my denomination our church officers must subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith...yet they may also take exceptions...and you don't need to subscribe to the Westminster to be a member of my denomination...and this denomination falls into a more conservative spectrum than most evangelical churches. Again, this isn't really the point I care to emphasize.

You need to understand that my entire argument hinges on this: neither organized
Christianity nor atheism in general is responsible for the atrocities committed by their followers.

I agree with you in a certain sense. I do not blame atheism...atheism can't do anything. People do things. Unlike Christianity, however, atheism provides a metaphysics where atrocities are inevitable. To drive my point home a bit, let me say this (and this isn't simply for shock value):

Consider a case of cannibalism. If you walked into a room where a man was cannibalizing another man, you might say "Stop! Don't do that!" The cannibal may stop mid bite, flesh stuck in his teeth, and mutter: "Why?" You might respond: "What you're doing is wrong!" The cannibal may respond (if he is an atheist) by saying: "That's odd, tastes like chicken to me".

Ponder that scenario for a moment...there is a reason for the phrasing I chose.

A Surprising Look at Humility

2009-04-26T21:23:00.002-04:00

Sermon delivered by Pastor David Bayly of Christ the Word.

"No Offense"

2009-04-22T09:21:00.011-04:00

I’m not one that usually goes into tabloid fodder to make commentary…and I trust this will be a bit different than what you’ve read from other “Conservative” Christian bloggers.

I watched a video put up by James White (a man that I have greatly benefited from, btw), and he was quite up in arms about the liberal establishment taking over the U.S….and he’s right, to an extent. We all know the libs run the entertainment industry and parade about the worldview of unbelief non-stop. I’m frankly quite unsurprised by this fact. I am surprised by another, however.

It’s jaw-dropping to consider that many Christians are running to the defense of Miss California, the almost beauty queen…even she's painting herself as being tested by God…so we have a martyr in a push-up bra. No Christian ever looked so sumptuous when being placed in front of the lions at Rome...

Let’s be honest concerning what these pageants are about. James White did make mention about his concern that this lusty lady was wobbling her goods about on stage like her bovine brethren shortly before the slaughter…but beyond that, he was upset mostly with the leftist media. I’m not as scandalized by the media as I am by a woman cloaked (is that the right word when you’re marching around in your skivvies?) in the Christian faith for the sole purpose of being ogled and winning the crown of "most ogleable". I’m also scandalized further when that “Christian” answers a straightforward question with a back-peddling response…she was no Martin Luther up there…she did not stand on the Word of God, she appealed to the way she was brought up…and by the way world, “No offense” (her words, no mine). Well who could be offended by that? Sodomites are born one way, heteros are simply brought up another. She’s the product of circumstance, just like the rejecters of diversity (i.e. HOMOsexuals).

So what kind of a test was this woman presented with? Let me suggest she was simply being tested on her worldly catechism. She sure looked like the world, but could her words also comply with her actions? Apparently not. In principle, I'd argue, she was compliant...but catechism is all about using the right words.

What lesson may we learn that Miss California did not? The lesson Christ taught us:
You have two masters to choose from…the master of unbelief hates a divided heart just as much as the Triune God.

We're missing the true understanding of the antithetical relationship between the Seed of the woman and the serpent of old.

Religion and Murder

2009-04-17T20:20:00.004-04:00

When a person commits an act of murder, we seek to understand the influences and motivations that led them to make such a tragic decision.

Last Friday, a YouTube user by the name of Anthony Powell (a.k.a. tony48219) committed murder/suicide, which has led to a great deal of finger-pointing and blame-laying. It's been rather disappointing to see how many people were so quick to use this tragedy as a basis for criticizing the Christian faith. I posted a video to my CPatriot333 channel in an attempt to set the record straight...

Masoni Raves About Antipelagian

2009-04-16T13:13:00.016-04:00

At Antipelagian, we try to extend the olive branch of friendship...while I disagree with nearly anything that is said by M over at Masoni Raves, I find him friendly and easy to have exchanges with. I trust he'd say the same about me. In this vein, I'd like to discuss items from this post he took issue with.

I would like to say more should be laid out concerning definition of terms. On my end, there may be some points I ought to tighten up, but let me simply point out a number of such issues in regard to M's post. I'd rather not get lost in the details and argue about whose "i" is dotted more legibly; I do hope I will have avoided this.

First off, I don't believe there is a general "mistrust" of atheists from modern Americans. I could be wrong, but I think they are only distrustful of fundie atheists in the same way they are distrustful of fundie Christians. In either case it isn't so much a fear of the propositional content of each group, rather, it is a disregard for anyone so daring as to make dogmatic assertions. There's nothing more distasteful to Americans than certainty.

M's frustration with modern Americans isn't so much their strident belief in God as much as it's their latent agnosticism...which is the father of atheism (if not, then they're at least kissing-cousins). This is not limited to those that openly acknowledge atheism or agnosticism...this very spirit of unbelief is rampant in evangelicalism with its disdain of creedal affirmations and anyone that disrupts the peace by speaking God's Word unequivocally. I have no doubt that if M announced to latent agnostics that he simply was unconvinced that there is a God, they'd champion him as a "seeker"...it's just when you commit yourself to concrete propositions that Americans get weak in the knees.

As to the rest of what M had to say, he really didn't make any point. I wish he had. He said, for instance:

I will say, however, that his definition of "atheism" doubtless differs from mine.

Let's leave no doubt, what is your definition?

To my mind, it's clear you draw your lines differently when defining a worldview such as atheism compared with Christianity. I say this because you made this claim:

Christianity is organized. The various sects of Christians all follow the same established theology, the same established deity, and the same established moral coda. Atheists, on the other hand, are unorganized; we all believe something different about everything.

Christians (those rascals) agree on the most important items! I must have a different definition of Christianity than you do. Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals are all sects representing Christian heresy. None of these agree on who God is, nor how many gods there are. Within broad evangelicalism, you have those that believe God may be feminine, others that He is nearly identical to the world, others that think God is so wholly other that one wonders how He can bridge the "Christianized" Kantian wall into the phenomenal world.

I'm not sure how "organized" you see Christianity...I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, but I am pointing out how overly simplified your view of Christianity is. So far, I only gave you a few differing ideas of who God is according to Christian sects, we never got into the ethical which includes tea-totalers to wine swillers, from pacifists to war-hawks, from monogamists to polygamists, from egalitarians to patriarchalists, from those opposed to all forms of birth control to those that think infanticide is a valid form of birth control...shall I continue?

You opt to see Christians monistically while seeing pure diversity within atheism, so much so that you divorce the atheistic assumption held by genocidal dictators from the evil they were a part of. That is a curious double-standard. Before going further let me say something: I'm not implying, stating, or arguing that atheists are evil, maniacally twisted perverts doing the most wretched things compared to everyone else. I am saying that the atheistic worldview is one where *anything* may be concluded...in fact, I would argue (though not in this post) that atheistic ethics leads logically where any individual chooses to go. The reason this is so is that no ethical conclusion from an atheistic worldview is justified...no conclusion is justified, therefore any conclusion is equally valid (and invalid) than another. So yes, there is diversity within atheism. But there is also unity. The atheistic regimes enacting genocide in the 20th Century were the product of a philosophical atheism that gained "scientific" grounding through evolutionary theory. This is demonstrated through the eugenics movement which heavily influenced Nazi Germany. It is also demonstrated through Marxism popularized, with modification, by Stalin. These sorts of movements were the fruit of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and were at their core atheistic.

Just because there may be in-house squabbles with atheists doesn't negate the fact they are in-house. When you say:

Well, that's more than a little backwards and offensive, isn't it?

You're not appealing to anything other than your own personal offense at what I said. You expect others to take your simply saying it's "backwards" and "offensive" as making a point. I have no doubt you're offended, and believe me, I'm offended by the theft from the Christian worldview that atheists are trying to plunder. Is my being offended in anyway a proof against what is contrary? Of course not. So I would explain my offense stems from atheism's rejection of a moral fall of man and replaces it with a metaphysical fall where man is alienated from others and the world. Redemption can be sought any number of ways (literally), but popular ones involve the State, and also reproductive "rights" (i.e. redefining family, making children an option, eugenics). Atheists like the idea of "supermen" where all become gods...or they like a superman where the idea of a god is incarnated by way of the State, or a dictator. Power ends up being concentrated in the individual, resulting in anarchy, or it is concentrated into a solidified State or collective...resulting in a tyranny over personal liberty. You may be offended by this, but this is the history of atheistic political philosophy.

You also said:

Those genocidal atheists...weren't committing mass murder because of their atheism! Christian genocides have routinely been performed out of some intensely backwards faith, killing the minority in the name of some bloodthirsty god.

Well that's just a little backwards and offensive, isn't it :) ? The truth of the matter is that there has been much political unrest that has been said to be the product of Christianity, but is really the product of trying to re-acquisition land lost in battle with other nations (the Crusades, for instance) and also the battle between Church and State. It is an interesting fact to note that many of the Catholic encyclicals issued were related to the State usurping the jurisdiction of the Church (the encyclicals were largely ignored by the State, by the way). We often think the Church/State issue is something that appeared with the dawn of the Enlightenment, but it's been there since Christ's incarnation and the martyrs at the hands of Rome.

Far from being a "back-woods" mingling of Church and State, atrocities done in the name of the Christian God were more typically the result of a tyrant acting as if he were an incarnation of God Himself. These kings did not act as if they were on a mission from God, they claimed to be god-incarnate. Consider a couple of examples of this:

Henry II said:

The displeasure and wrath of Almighty God are also my displeasure and wrath. By nature, I am a son of wrath: why should I not rage? God Himself rages when He is wrathful [1]

Frederick II:

After he was Emperor, Frederick sang the praises of his birth-place in a remarkable document. He called Jesi his Bethlehem, and the Divine Mother who bore him he placed on the same plane as the Mother of our Lord [2]

Who also said of himself:

The Messiah-Emporer who is expected and who shall set up an Empire of Justice must show himself the revivifier of the ancient Roman Empire, the reincarnation of Augustus, Prince of Peace, restoring imperial Rome to her old position in the world [3]

So you would be right that many evils have been done from religious impulse, the religion is most typically that of politics. If rulers do not see themselves as subject to the rule of God, they subject the world to their own rule...and fallen man is all too often quick to oblige once he's abandoned the notion of the Transcendent God.

You may be surprised to find out that I'm not here to prove that religion has clean hands while atheism doesn't...quite the contrary (as I see atheism as a religion). There is violence born from religion, and the religion of perpetual violence is the one which divinizes the world. Christ is God-Incarnate. The history of the world is replete with men seeking power as if they were a gods...this is the antithetical god-man. It is religious to the core. A religion of pure immanence. Biblically, Christians reject this notion. It was for this very reason that Christians were called "atheists" by Rome: they would not worship the Emperor. They worshipped the God unbounded by the temporal world.

It is true that since the dawn of Christianity many leaders have worn the title "Christian". But to take the mere identification of that title as being the direct cause for unjust behavior is purely ignorant. Many will wear a title for many different reasons, and it is no surprise that many wearing the title do it for personal gain.

Hitler was no exception. He was most certainly not a Christian, and possibly not an atheist. Like all unbelievers, he was a faithful proponent of the primacy of the immanent. For him, orthodox Christianity was anathema. The true story is that he was opposed to Christianity as he saw it as an enemy to his dominion (like the wannabe gods before him). If the ideal of the State has not won the heart of the people, the anti-god-man must wage war against the Transcendent God. That is the story of history, and that is the sad story of atheistic philosophy.

When viewing things through the lens of the Transcendent v.s. the primacy of the immanent, it should be clear that the Christian religion, founded upon the God-Man, is not a religion that equivocates between the rule of God with the rule of the State...quite the contrary, it establishes the primacy of God's sovereignty and all men's responsibility before Him, including our political leaders. If you want to argue that genocide is the direct result of God giving a general command to arbitrarily kill unbelievers, or whoever, you must demonstrate how that follows from our Revelation, the Bible. If anything, you will not find a consistency between mass murder and general Biblical commands. With atheism, however, you cannot logically argue that genocide is not an outworking of that worldview. Again, I'm not saying atheists are prone to being more evil than anyone else, nor that you dream of killing/torture/etc. What it comes down to is this:

If you're opposed to genocide, is it wrong because you say so, or for some other reason? If because you say so, then it may not be wrong for someone else. If it is wrong because of another reason, that reason will lead to the tyranny of mob-rule, or the tyranny of a powerful State.

When you assert:

...saying that atheists have killed more people than Christians is purely coincidental...

You seem to be saying that numbers imply nothing, but when someone with the title of "Christian" kills, it says everything...does seem like a double-standard, doesn't it? Perhaps a bit like near-sighted religiosity?

[1] Friedrich Heer: The Medieval World, Europe 1100-1350

[2] Ernst Kantorowicz: Frederick the Second 1194-1250

[3] ibid

Antipelagian 5.0

2009-04-15T23:19:00.000-04:00

I've done some house cleaning and designed a new banner.

What are your opinions? My main concern is that the site look attractive, and clean...I hate cluttery looking sites. Hopefully this is more reader-friendly...if you have a different opinion, please let me know!

Pattern of Sound Words

2009-04-12T22:05:00.003-04:00

Sermon delivered by Pastor David Bayly of Christ the Word.

Argumentum Ad Atheism

2009-04-11T15:33:00.004-04:00

I've had a fellow sending me messages periodically telling me how ignorant I am and how frightened I likely am of debating with him...finally, I told him he needs to present an actual argument...that he needs to ante up instead of just telling me how ignorant I am.

I am not sure if he made the video below in response to my admonition, but part of me thinks he did...

I responded with this video:

Christians denying Christ?

2009-04-08T20:47:00.007-04:00

An article published last December in USA Today entitled, “Many beliefs, many paths to heaven?” described the surprising results of a Pew Survey on Religion in America. The survey found that the majority of professed Christians in America do not believe in the exclusivity of salvation through Christ. A shocking 52% of the Christians surveyed answered that “eternal life is not exclusively for those who accept Christ as their savior”.

Before we are quick to assume this must only affect the more liberal Christian denominations, the article breaks down the numbers even further, revealing that 34% of white evangelical Christians named at least one non-Christian faith that could lead to salvation. So, even if you attend a conservative, Bible-believing, evangelical church, you may be surprised to discover that potentially one out of every three of your fellow parishioners believes that Christ is only one way out of many.

When asked about the results of this Pew Survey, Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called the findings “a theological crisis for American evangelicals.” According to Dr. Mohler, “They represent at best a misunderstanding of the Gospel and at worst a repudiation of the Gospel.” This sobering assessment is in no way an understatement. If the Pew survey is to be believed, it raises serious questions about the faith of most American ‘Christians’. Can a person rightly even call themselves a Christian if they deny the explicit and transparent teachings of Jesus Christ?

Of course, Christ left little room for ambiguity in this matter:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9a)

“He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18)

We also know that the doctrine of Solus Christus (by Christ Alone) was an essential element of the Gospel as preached by the apostles themselves. The Acts of the Apostles record Peter’s proclamation of this truth to the people of Jerusalem, saying, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

For one to believe that there can be salvation apart from Christ is to utterly divorce oneself from an essential teaching of the Faith. Even worse, it is to make a complete mockery of the atoning sacrifice Christ made for us on the cross and to inadvertently accuse the Lord Himself of being a common liar. There’s no doubt that many in America who call themselves ‘Christian’ really are not, and that the true and invisible Church is much smaller than the broad, but infinitely shallow, visible one. However, churches in America are also simply not doing a good enough job of discipling new converts or guiding their members into greater degrees of Christian maturity. We must remember Paul’s exhortation to “Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.” (2 Timothy 2:4b)

If you know of someone in your congregation who believes that Christ is ‘option A’ for salvation, but that there is an equally effectual ‘option B’ for the man in the Temple or Mosque down the street, you should take some time and kindly show him the plain teachings of Christ on this subject. If he persists in his error, he should be made to explain how it is that he can openly deny the teachings of Christ and still rightly be called a Christian. No matter what, it is inexcusable for us to allow this problem to go unaddressed, because a Christ-denying ‘Christian’ is truly no Christian at all.

-CP

References
The Pew Survey
USA Today: Is heaven's gate wide or narrow?
USA Today: Many beliefs, many paths to heaven?

God Guards What We Entrust to Him

2009-04-05T17:51:00.002-04:00

Sermon delivered by Pastor David Bayly of Christ the Word, PCA in Toledo.

Certainty of God's Word

2009-04-02T16:29:00.022-04:00

Consider this quote from a professing believer:

Think about free will. If science could actually prove the existence of God empirically then Free choice would be compromised for a large portion of humanity.

Note: There's much that could be discussed regarding this quote, but will not serve the purposes of this entry. For example, the question of why free choice is compromised for only a large portion of society, but not the whole, will be left unaddressed. Also left out of this critique will be a discussion of how it follows that free-will exists when a metaphysical truth remains unproven, but ceases once the truth has been established. Consider, for example, that we had a control group testing for free choice (free choice, like the immaterial, Triune God is an immaterial, metaphysical claim as well). If after sufficient testing it is demonstrated that free choice is exercised by each within the control group, would free-will then be invalidated by virtue of it having been scientifically established? Further demonstrations could go on.

Initially I would like to say I agree that, in one sense, God cannot be "proven" as an end result of the scientific method. If he were provable merely as a conclusion, then he would be finite and limited. After all, it would mean God is identical with the world if the Divine Essence could be measured, poked and prodded.

The comment does seem to assert more than this, a far more sweeping generalization stating that God is not apprehended via the natural order. That is to say, God's created order is not revelation. This is an accepted principle from many Christians when they attempt to defend the faith, so I don't want to seem to be picking on this fellow. I've seen the same comment verbatim from other believers. When we do this, at best we are reasoning in a bi-polar fashion, at worst we are displaying the heart of unfaithfulness when we read our bibles one way only to then evaluate the world apart the biblical lens afforded us by the Triune God.

Compare his words from the quote above with what the Apostle Paul says:

Romans 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…

Seems to me that Paul has a crazy notion that God is not only provable by the natural order, but is completely obvious through it. This Christian’s position would wind up affirming (logically) the notion that the unbeliever does have an excuse before God, whereas Paul says the unbeliever is condemned by the revelation found in the natural order.

Now, let’s go ahead and consider this professing believer’s crazy assumption that the inductive method is the most reliable method for acquiring truth:

2 Peter 1:16-19
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And we also have the more sure prophetic, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts

Strangely, the Apostle Peter seems to think revelation from God is more sure than any evidence found in the material world. I wonder why he thinks certainty is built on God’s revelation and not ideas that belong to the Enlightenment? Apparently he wasn't aware of Hume or Kant...oh well.

It may not seem obvious, but the professing believer in question begins with an unbelieving presupposition: namely, that the natural order is not evidence for God (that it isn’t revelational). The New Testament says otherwise as Paul says God shows all men His invisible qualities through the natural order. Certainty can only be found in God's revelation. When we agree with unbelieving notions of certainty built upon a closed, natural metaphysics, fideism will always be the consequence if we should try to remain Christians.

Some will wonder at my saying such. Fideism is the natural consequence of an autonomous view of the natural order. It makes perfect sense. If you first assume that the natural order is not revelational, then what is the logical consequence? A natural order that is an existence to itself. With an epistemology tied up in the autonomous world, and not the transcendent God, you are trapped in that very world. Consider the words of Herman Bavinck:

The true religion which shall satisfy our mind and heart, our conscience and our will, must be one that does not shut us up in, but lifts us high above the world; in the midst of time it must impart to us eternity; in the midst of death give us life; in the midst of the stream of change place us on the immovable rock of salvation. This is the reason why transcendence, supranaturalism, revelation, are essential to all religion. [1]

An epistemology that is not built upon the transcendent God, but is bound up in a tactile world, is one where there is no room for God. We do not live and move and have our being in the God unbounded by the temporal order. Instead, we live, move, and have our being in a closed natural order. Having shown God the exit, the only way to cross the impossible wall back to Him is by way of a radical leap of faith.

[1] The Philosophy of Revelation, Herman Bavinck

Receiving The Promise

2009-03-29T16:34:00.001-04:00

Sermon from Pastor David Bayly of Christ the Word, PCA in Toledo.

Christianity Has Killed Its Thousands, Atheism Has...

2009-03-27T07:30:00.001-04:00

Dinesh D'Souza gives a little perspective for when the atheist fist-biting crowd talks about religion killing scads of people...by my estimates, Christianity has killed, over a period of 2,000 years, about 10 people per year. It may be worthwhile to note that's when the Western world was largely Christian, or some subset thereof.

Consider: atheism is, and has been, a minority position. You do the math...Christianity has killed its thousands over 2,000 years, atheism has killed its tens of millions within the last 100 years.

Trying to divorce the ideology of atheism from its leaders' blood-thirsty roles in history is difficult to do when one considers that the "Enlightenment" made man into an autonomous god...from there, the stage was set for man to realize "heaven" on earth by means of instituting its own myth of fall, redemption, consummation of all things. Instead of removing the "faeries" from the landscape, autonomous man ends up divinizing the world, especially centralized figures in the form of political philosophy.

Christianity affirms man's moral Fall and his need for Redemption...it is not a metaphysical Fall that isolates man from his environment and those around him (note atheism does have the tendency of creating a deep sense of alienation: see Sartre for an example). When man thinks his fall is metaphysical, he then seeks to reshape the world according to his own autonomous imaginations, so it is not surprising to see the gut-wrenching effects. We see this with China's forced abortions, we see it in environmentalism's ideas of population control and appeasing an angry earth-god. We see it in scores of government funded programs that eliminate poverty while leaving men in an impoverished state.

The religion from the Triune God sets out to restore man's faculties within himself as his real problem is his moral fall from Grace. This is why Christianity has a tendency of improving civilization as it seeks to restore the individual to his God before instituting any form of theocracy. Man is best restored to God through God's ordained means: gospel preaching that tells man to repent of his sins and believe in Christ, the God-Man...every other worldview sets out to make men into god-men where they incarnate their own ideal...and when that god roams the earth, he bares a ruthless sword.

Atheism, as has been noted before, is a competing religion. It doesn't relieve men of a world occupied with fairies and other superstition...its adherents seek to establish their own rites, legitimize their own faith, and you better believe they have an incarnate god that they worship. Typically, it will be themselves or it will be a centralized figure that promises to restore order to a world that they think had a metaphysical fall into chaos (makes sense when you consider atheism is, at its core, a chaos cult).

None of these ideas are terribly original on my part...for an intriguing read, check out Rushdoony's The One and the Many.

A "Bold" Future of "Hope"

2009-03-25T10:17:00.006-04:00

In light of things such as this that are going on, consider Chesterton's words:

The Boer War, for instance, was colored not so much by the creed that we were doing something right, as by the creed that the Boers and Germans were probably doing something wrong....it is the peculiar evil of this epoch that even its pugnacity is fundamentally frightened; & the Jingo is contemptible not because he is impudent, but because he is timid.
What's Wrong With The World, pgs 29, 28

Thanks Go To Mariano!

2009-03-23T22:51:00.003-04:00

Over here at Antipelagian, you might say there is a "limitation" when it comes to all things graphical, artistic, or whatever.

Mariano from Atheism is Dead was kind enough to make us headers...so what you see at the top of the page is his handiwork.

The serpent in the image is clearly not in good shape...in fact, he is squashed...and that's for good reason:

Genesis 3:14-15
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“ Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

We greatly appreciate Mariano's talents...and they are not limited to graphics...he's done a great job at Atheism is Dead and debunking more cults than you can shake a stick at.

UnBeguiled Gets Featured!

2009-03-23T14:52:00.004-04:00

The always inflammatory UnBeguiled gets some (in your) face time over at Triablogue...

When A Culture Declines, Faith Looks Like...

2009-03-22T21:26:00.007-04:00

While reading through Chesterton's work, What's Wrong With the World, I was reminded of a sermon I listened to a number of weeks ago. When we're surrounded by a culture that is declining, how does a Christian respond in faith?

Many of us respond with fear. Consider the wicked leader we've deservedly received: Barack Obama. Expatriating suddenly doesn't sound as crazy or unpatriotic as it did eight years ago. Or how about this: Start pamphleteering your town with alternative political viewpoints or a written copy of the Constitution or other founding documents. My email inbox is littered with all of these things, and yes, I know: thing's are pretty bad...it will likely get worse if God's grace is withheld. But what does faith look like when the peddlers of fear make it look like tomorrow may not come? Does our answer come from the political arena? I don't think so. That's symptomatic of a deeper problem. "We the people" elect our representatives, and right now, to our shame we're represented quite accurately.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should abandon the process, I'm saying we must be certain when diagnosing the problem we're emphasizing the right syllable otherwise it all comes out wrong. How do believers enact a change that is lasting? There are things we can do now, but what we often do now is reactionary and not faith...what's real preparedness when we're surrounded by darkness and we think tomorrow may not actually come? Do we look to the same source we already know can't save us, i.e. the political arena? Every two to eight years we have the opportunity to introduce new Presidents and legislators and local government officials.

Instead of listening to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, you name it; let's listen to the words of Chesterton for a moment:

There has arisen in our time a most singular fancy: the fancy that when things go very wrong we need a practical man. It would be far truer to say, that when things go very wrong we need an unpractical man. Certainly, at least, we need a theorist. A practical man means a man accustomed to mere daily practice, to the way things commonly work. When things will not work, you must have the thinker, the man who has some doctrine about why they work at all. It is wrong to fiddle while Rome is burning; but it is quite right to study the theory of hydraulics while Rome is burning. G.K. Chesteron, What's Wrong With the World pg. 19

Another way to say it, as the sermon I listen to put it: If it looks like there's no tomorrow, plant a tree. So says the word of God when Israel when into captivity. God didn't say "Look for a way out of that place...and by the way, be sure to pack light and don't marry! If you do marry, maybe when you copulate, be sure to pull out."

Here's what God says:

Jeremiah 29:4-7
4 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace.

When faith makes long-term planning, it involves family planning...plan on having family. When surrounded by darkness, infect it with light. Our greatest cultural war is largely ignored by the Church. Christian husbands: we need to take the sword out of the sheath.

Blessed are the "Peacemakers"

2009-03-20T22:38:00.005-04:00

There's hardly anything more disruptive to the ebb and flow of our lives than difficulties. You've met difficulties, I'm sure, anything from the traumatic where a physician's diagnosis alters the course of your life to an unruly neighbor that keeps you up late at night...or perhaps it's the fellow that remains just within ear shot tapping a relentless beat with his pencil against a metal desk.

There's any number of ways you could deal with it, but the end result that we seek is typically peace...that or pretend we're simply at the mercy of a careless universe that is treating us with impartial malevolence...just a series of chaotic, uncontrolled events that we encounter much like a domino meets another by tipping forward. Unavoidable, really. Don't take it personally. Shrug it off or shake your fist with empty vindictiveness.

Shaking our fists is clearly futile, and not biblical in the least if the object of our wrath is what we glibly describe as "chance". Often, we find that it is best to make peace with the situation, to submit to the circumstance. I wonder, however, if this is what Scripture depicts as peacemaking? The original mandate in Genesis was to take dominion of the earth, to exert an authority conferred by God, especially as it relates to the Imago Dei.

We're not so arrogant anymore, thank heavens. We are not only ready to submit ourselves to a universe ruled by "chance", but also to capitulate to the thinking and culture of the world. When we embrace standards espoused by a culture that embraces chance, we are adopting a "cultus". That is, to say, we're guilty of syncretism (at best) or of leaving the true Faith. It is quite comfortable to accept worldly thinking when it entails such comforts. Our country was founded on Christian principles, after all...right? We're certainly not adopting the ways of Baal's followers...no, we're too enlightened for that. There is no battle, right?

Look around and you'll see Christianity is full of peacemakers. Whether it's Brian McLaren making peace with sodomites or Rob Bell in one of his NOOMA videos denouncing a man preaching God's Word because the man was talking about God's judgement on sin...those means don't work, we must do what "works", after all. Mr. Blow Horn man, won't you please put your Bible down and step off your pedestal for a moment...there's people walking past, you're disturbing the peace.

We satisfy ourselves with the comforts we have and we don't want to step on the toes of those friendly unbelievers that we don't make eye contact with at Star Bucks while we order our mocha frappacinos that chase away the cold from the lack of love in our "faith". The world's at peace...shhhh! You'll wake someone with that blow horn, shut up for the love of....love of what? I dunno, just don't say those words, and not that way. Let's get some coffee.

This isn't new, this has been the tendency of God's people throughout history. In fact, this is what it was like a generation or so after God's people took over the Promised Land. Suddenly, the valiant warring and destruction...the putting of cities "under the ban" (i.e. destroying all life and property) fell by the wayside...Israel became peacemakers.

God prophesied this would happen, that His people would become peacemakers, that they would enter into agreements not sanctioned by God, and this necessarily meant they would chase after other gods.

Judges 2:1-3
1 Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’”

But God did not merely leave the nations around His people to torment them...He wanted to teach them how to make peace:

Judges 3:1-2
1 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it)

Is This Site a "Ministry"?

2009-03-19T09:53:00.007-04:00

The members of Antipelagian seek to be a source of edification for believers. We attempt to address critical issues, defend biblical teaching, and proclaim Christ as Savior. To this effect we pray God uses us.

We do not view this site as a ministry. None of us are ordained, but are members in good standing of our respective churches. We are not here to ask for money, nor are we here to assert our teaching authority.

We recognize there is a danger when it comes to using the Internet, blogs especially, as a medium for sharing God's Word. Many confuse themselves as "ministers" in an official capacity. Compounding this are readers who acquiesce and before you know it, there is a following. This contributes to the breakdown of genuine fellowship.

If you are a believer, we hope you benefit from this site. We hope to spur on your faith, but we don't want it to be a "virtual" faith. Do not forsake the assembly! Fellowship with believers and sit under the authority of a bible-believing church. Do not get caught up in debates and godless chatter.

If you are an unbeliever, we pray God gives you eyes to see and ears to hear.

We hope to offer substantive content, but we do not fancy ourselves your shepherds.

Why "Antipelagian"?

2009-03-18T22:33:00.008-04:00

I decided that the term "Antipelagian" encapsulates a number of truths that Christians have been silent on. Namely, salvation being a sovereign act of God where He regenerates sinners so that they will believe in Christ. Man, apart from the work of God's Spirit in conversion, is radically prone to sin (Gen 6:5,Jer 17:9,Rom 8:7). This necessarily means God is sovereign in all things, even justification (Eph 2:4-10).

With this truth largely neglected, Christianity has fallen into easy-believism, and seeker-sensitivity. The world is no longer to be taken dominion of, instead, Christians "baptize" the world's unbelief and wickedness calling that discipling the nations. The result is a church that is largely irrelevant, silent, and laughable. We are not called to make peace, but to make war with the world...peace comes through dominion. Being "Antipelagian" means voicing strenuous opposition to the gangrene of worldliness infecting evangelicalism.

We are to proclaim Christ. All His enemies will be His footstool (Psalm 110:1)

Got a Question?

2009-03-01T15:38:00.008-05:00

Craig's email:
craig@antipelagian.com

Information Blinking on a Screen...Lights. Flash. Zip. Rush.

2008-08-13T22:13:00.000-04:00

I am a bit wary of all things technological. I find it quite useful at times, but in the shaping of society, I find it quite frightening. Why? It "unifies" an entire culture. When technology (usually in many different forms of entertainment) become our universal way of relating to each other (for those who actually do relate to people outside of the internet), a strange identity is formed. It isn't that I'm stuck in the past or glorify the past "before all this technology business" as if that was what should always be...no, it isn't that.

What we have now is a shallow veneer of meaning. In fact, I wouldn't go so far as to describe our society a culture, primarily...or even a society: We are a market. The appeal to pleasure is what typically determines any given decision we make...whether we're voting, "choosing" a religion, making friendships, pursuing relationships...whatever. We are geared toward pleasure. The end result is a culture with no particular definition or way of cohesion except by way of one word we've been trained by images to adore: Pleasure.

Almost forgotten are the times we would spend talking...tasting a glass of wine and allowing the result to be a more meaningful conversation as one's heart is gladdened. Instead, we don't converse: We spew words at each other...we talk of what we saw on the television and who's popular in Hollywood...we may gather in groups around alcohol, but it is simply for the sole reason of becoming inebriated.

Here are some poignant snippets from Fahrenheit 451:

Picture it. Nineteenth-century man with his horses, dogs, carts, slow motion. Then, in the twentieth century, speed up your camera. Books cut shorter. Condensations. Digests. Tabloids. Everything boils down to the gag, the snap ending...School is shortened, discipline relaxed, philosophies, histories, languages dropped, English and spelling gradually gradually neglected, finally almost completely ignored. Life is immediate, the job counts, pleasure lies all about after work. Why learn anything save pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts?
More sports for everyone, group spirit, fun, and you don't have to think, eh? Organize and organize and superorganize super-super sports. More cartoons in books. More pictures. The mind drinks less and less. Impatience. Highways full of crowds going somewhere, somewhere, somewhere, nowhere. The gasoline refugee....
Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texan...the bigger your market...the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean...Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said. But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive. And the three-dimensional sex magazines, of course...It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick...Thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time...You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn't that right? Haven't you heard it all your life? Well aren't they? Don't we keep them moving, don't we give them fun? That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these.

Gambling: A Matter of Christian Liberty?

2008-07-10T23:30:00.000-04:00

Is it within a Christian's liberty to gamble?

Meeting with some friends one night, we ended with a discussion on gambling and whether or not it's a legitimate form of business. I am of the opinion that it is a completely illegitimate form of business and ought to be outlawed. I am not firm on the outlawing of it, I am not convinced a moral argument alone can make something criminal. Lots of things are immoral, but not criminal.

Can an argument be made, if it is not criminal, that it is within a Christian's liberty to participate?

I would also answer this with a definite "No". It is an inherently godless form of business. I believe this is so for a number of reasons:

1) Presuppositionally, it is godless.

2) It is parasitic in nature (thank you Dan for giving me that name).

3) There is nothing produced in either service or goods

At this point, these are the top three, in the order of importance.

It is presuppositionally godless for a couple of reasons:

It presumes that your money is yours alone and not from God's hand. God's portion isn't simply the tithe, the tithe acknowledges that the whole is from God...the tithe is what you give back. By gambling, you are saying: "this is mine. I made this and I will willingly waste this money". Another reason is probably just as obvious: Any time you are exchanging money for something (in this case, nothing) you are buying into an idea. Inherently to this system, chance is supreme. By placing your money into the system, you are not simply saying this is within my liberty, you are saying this system is right...the only way the system can be right is if God is not God, and you are supreme and wealth is distributed by chance.

Secondly, the system is parasitic to the core. The success of a casino or any other system of betting relies on people losing. Within the market place, there are many times losers...and many times people can profit from that. However, it is not inherently necessary for others to fail in order for one to profit. Gambling must have losers in order to have winners...making it parasitic.

Related to number two is the fact that gambling produces nothing in exchange for money. Nothing, whether by goods or service, is received by a patron...what they "receive" is a chance. Success is not the result of planning, thrift, and productivity. It is the result of one receiving money because of the loss of one or many people.

What other form of business can thrive on such a system? Mine couldn't. I can't think of any other in a free market. Any business producing nothing while receiving money from it's patrons while the patron is hoping otherwise would either have a poor standing with the Better Business Bureau or simply lose their customer. Dens of gambling are not relying on better service or products to keep customers: They are relying on them buying into the godless system of chance and autonomy.

New Atheism Suggests: "More Children Need Molesting!"

2008-06-11T22:17:00.009-04:00

I had a brief exchange with an atheist at Corey Tucholski's site, Josiah Concept Ministries.

The atheist goes by the moniker Vitaminbook. He is a young man who rails against Christianity, especially when it comes to ignorant 6 Day Creationists (like myself) and arguing for sodomite "rights".

What sparked the discussion was me putting sodomy and pedophilia in the same category of sexual perversion...they are not the same, nor are they equally bad (in my opinion), but they do fall under the category of rank sexual perversion. This got me to thinking...New Atheism is obsessed with the meme theory Richard Dawkins developed in The Selfish Gene. Meme theory claims that ideas...yes, religious ideas...are spread like a virus. With that, our ideas of what is right and wrong. The Christian position contra sodomy would be a meme.

Some atheists are very selective in fighting their battles...homosexual "rights" just happens to be one of the memes worth killing (well, God needs to die too, of course). By what standard are atheists judging "good" from "bad"? With meme theory, we can expect much more being argued for than just sodomite marriages.

Some might argue against pedophilia because "it hurts children!" Well, thanks to meme theory, we know it only hurts children because of the replicating meme...the best way to do battle with the meme is to eradicate it. It's like what Christians are told all the time..."You guys are just scared of what you don't understand"...so it is the case for pedophilia.

There is a presence of many that would argue for the "natural" exchange of love between adult and child. Heck, some even find the opportunity of being molested quite liberating.

New Atheism encourages us to break harmful memes (whatever they deem "harmful"...wait...wouldn't the notion of "harm", since it has to do with value, be a meme as well? Let's not ask that pesky question!).

Hear the war call of the New Atheist Movement! It is a brave growl accompanied with face paint and kilts, no doubt (Mr. Hitchens, please lower your kilt). Much like a neocon baiting the U.S. to drop the bombs of freedom in Iraq comes the New Atheist battle cry:

"There's a generation of children that needs liberating! Who will fulfill the high call of molesting them?"