Category Archives: Theology
Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part I
Mike of the Finding Bliss blog demonstrates why some people hate Calvinism. They hate a strawman caricature of it, and they don’t understand what the five points really teach. This is why I plan to make my musings on the topics of the five points of Calvinism available as an e-book.
Let’s look at what Mike got right, and what he got wrong. Mike writes, “I’ve attempted to present the 5 points as a Calvinist might present them which is not easy to do, I don’t agree with it and what’s worse I find it spiritually abusive.” It’s important to note that Mike is attempting to present these points accurately. He failed in a few places. Read the rest of this entry
New Atheist Graphic
I just saw the following graphic on Common Sense Atheism. It’s new to me, so forgive me if it’s really old:
This, of course, has it completely wrong. God always was, there was never a time when he didn’t exist. He has existed in eternity before time, before anything else ever was, and that renders the facetious argument of this graphic invalid. He didn’t come from nothing, he never “sprang into being.” He simply existed, always.
Atheists: There are No “Heavyweights” of Theology
I’ve seen an interesting claim several times recently by different atheist bloggers. It’s been stated a few different ways. Let me illustrate. First, John W. Loftus:
In my opinion there are no heavy weights for Christianity just as there are no heavy weights for Scientology or Islam or Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism. It’s all improbable to the core and I see no reason why one religious myth’s scholar is any better than another. (source)
I see it in this post from Ray Garton, as well:
I’ve got news for you. We’re all experts on religion to one degree or another, every last one of us. Religion is not like, say, heart surgery or entomology or aviation. Sure, there are people who spend years in school studying theology and the bible, years in seminaries becoming clergymen. But there are also people who wake up one morning and decide to start their very own religion, and then do it. You, if you so desired, could go online and, for a small fee (small compared to the tuition that would be required to get a degree in anything), become an ordained minister, start a church and – presto-chango! – become a tax-free religion (yes, it really is that easy).
In any field of endeavor in which you are free to make it up as you go along, the word “expert” has little or no meaning.
In this video, Angie Jackson (aka Angie the Anti-Theist) also makes the claim (2:02-3:13). When criticized for not taking on better theistic arguments, she responds by saying that theism is self-evident nonsense no matter who she takes on. Therefore, she doesn’t need to seek out any better arguments because she can defeat all of them easily.
The underlying idea is that all we, as theologians, are doing is making this stuff up as we go along. That presupposes many, many things. First, it presupposes that they are absolutely correct and there is no God. From that, it it goes on to posit that there is no revelation, since no one is beyond this world to reveal it. And finally, it concludes that rigorous and lifelong study of the Scriptures yields no useful knowledge, no matter whose mind takes on the task.
The first proposition shows an incredible arrogance. To suppose, from material investigation only, that the immaterial doesn’t (or can’t) exist isn’t being fair-minded at all.
The second proposition, building from the first, concludes that there is no divine revelation due to the fact that there is no divine. The Scriptures are nothing but the scribbling of ignorant Bronze Age herdsmen. This proposition is accepted based on the erroneous conclusion that there is no God. God can be deduced from science, but not proven by science. If there is no reason to accept the first proposition, then the second proposition is also nonsense because special revelation is the only way to understand God’s character. It’s impossible to know the full character of God from general revelation only.
A written Scripture, in that framework, makes sense.
The third proposition is a negative consequence of scientism, which is the philosophy that only science can yield truth, and therefore knowledge gleaned by science is the only valid knowledge we can possess. (This notion has been linked to positivism, and they both can be refuted by the simple fact that, while they both require empirical evidence to prove everything, there is no empirical evidence to prove either of these propositions.) This rules out almost all of classicism, and philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle–anything that isn’t science isn’t knowledge.
By that standard, what I do (philosophy with some theology) is bunk to these people. Philosophy can’t be proven by science, though I would argue that science can suggest the truth or falsity of certain philosophies. Some people who subscribe to scientism go so far as to say that nothing learned before the Age of Enlightenment is worthwhile anymore.
This just isn’t so. The classical philosophers have much to offer us.
But, here’s the real problem. Assuming that these guys are wrong, and there really is a God who sits in judgment, who do you want teaching you his Word? L. Ron Hubbard, who (by all accounts) wholesale made up Scientology, or a godly Christian pastor, who has studied the revealed Word of God his whole life?
Before you make your choice, think about this. The soul, the part of you that is you, that is your essence, your being, is eternal. The beginning of anything sets the trajectory for how that “anything” plays out. This life, the beginning of your eternal existence, is going to set the trajectory of your eternity.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft used geometry as an illustration. Planar geometry represents this life, while adding a third dimension represents eternity. A planar shape, such a square, magnified into eternity, can only ever be a cube. Same with your life. In eternity, your “shape” is determined by the foundation you laid in this life. You can’t get around that.
Eternity is a long time. I want the guy who studied his stuff to teach me about God.
Didn’t I Just Talk About This?
This video from Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church (FL), highlights the exact point I was trying to make in my previous post regarding Rabbi Barry Block’s comments on Exodus. Dr. Hunter says that it is very dangerous to attach a literal meaning to Genesis 1 since it might drive away potential converts (especially if they might be scientists).
Dr. Hunter calls us to contemplate the fuller mystery of God.
However, he does rightly recognize that if we mythologize parts of the Bible, then how are we to understand other parts of the Bible? Are they also allegory? If the creation story found in Genesis 1 is only a myth constructed by Bronze Age herdsmen who don’t have a lick of scientific sense in their bodies, then can’t the same argument also be applied to the Resurrection?
We’re pandering to culture here. And as Christians, we should be better than that! How can we be salt and light to the world if, by our beliefs and actions, we are just like the world?
The Bible and History
Back in the day, when I used to follow the Rational Response Squad, user Badbark asked the Squad how they viewed the historicity of the Bible. A few answers, starting with Rook Hawkins:
Nothing in the Bible can be accepted as historical. We do not have evidence for very much, and what evidence we do have does not support the Biblical account. I suggest you read the introduction to my book for some bibliographical information, and skim through my blog for additional articles on this subject.
Hambydammit adds:
In a nutshell, the bible should be read like one of Homer’s epics. There are real names and places from time to time, but it is a work of fiction.
Even if some of the authors thought they were writing history, their accounts are not reliable unless they are backed up by corroborating evidence.
My favorite answer, from ronin-dog:
None of it. Even if a story is written in a historical setting, it is still fiction.
All this interests me. The Bible, contrary to what these atheists present, is at least attempting to present accurate history. It seems to stand up at least as well as other historical documents from the same eras, if not better. For example, the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have many details confirmed by archeology. We find parallels to Jacob purchasing Esau’s birthright, for example, in other period literature. The blessing of Jacob rendered by Isaac also has historic precedence: such a blessing by a patriarch would have been irrevocable, which is why Isaac is so horrified that Jacob deceived him and received the blessing intended for Esau. Many, including me, have asked, “Why not just take it back?” He couldn’t. We now know that.
The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the names of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes, were all found to be in use in that time period. There are also some mentions of a person named Abraham external to the Bible that seem to correspond to the Abraham in the Bible, but no one is for certain. Read the rest of this entry
Paul Allen on the Question of Christianity
Paul Allen of Hope Church Australia sums up the debate I’ve been having with Caleb and Bruce Gerencser on the definition of a Christian. Caleb and Bruce seem to think that anyone (e.g. Fred Phelps) who claims that he is a Christian is (the minimalist view), where I’ve been arguing (to a brick wall, it seems) that there are other factors in determining it (the maximal view). Allen says this:
If you were proposing marriage to someone, what would the one receiving the proposal say if you said, “I want you to know this proposal changes nothing about my allegiances, my behavior, and my daily life; however, I do want you to know that should you accept my proposal, we shall theoretically be considered married. There will be no other changes in me on your behalf.” In a strange way we have minimized every sacred commitment and made it the lowest common denominator. What does my new birth mean to me? That is a question we seldom ask. Who was I before God’s work in me, and who am I now?The immediate results of coming to know Jesus Christ are the new hungers and new pursuits that are planted within the human will. I well recall that dramatic change in my own way of thinking. There were new longings, new hopes, new dreams, new fulfillments, but most noticeably, there was a new will to do what was God’s will. (source)
Too often, in becoming a Christian, a person just wants the “lowest common denominator” Christianity. They want to go to church on Sunday and claim spirituality, but never really let it affect who they are or what they do. Jesus predicted this when he told the parable of the wheat and weeds (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43).
Despite what many skeptics say, including Bruce and Caleb, there is more in determining someone’s Christianity than merely a profession of faith. In addition to professing faith, the person in question will seek to do God’s will. They will listen to James when he wrote:
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (Jms 1:22-25)
Comments on “Inherited Religion?”
The comment section on my post titled “Inherited Religion?” is positively ablaze with flames. None of the retorts actually cover my answer to the objection I raised on inherited religion, which is simply that it is another mechanism by which God can predestine his elect. Thoughtful theological or philosophical rebuttals using Scripture would have been welcomed, but what I got is the empty rhetoric of skeptics and atheists.
Let’s take a look at some of the responses and see if we can sort this out. First up, these two from Stoo:
Wait, predestine his elect? So he’s already decided who’s saved and who’s going to burn? Or am I misinterpreting?
Oh this is some calvinism thing, right? Kind of depressing. You’d think god would at least want all of his creations to be saved, even if it doesn’t work out like that.
Yes, Stoo, this is “some Calvinism thing.” Although I started to pull away from Calvinism some time back, I have since returned to the fold of the so-called Young, Restless and Reformed (or, as I prefer, New Calvinism) movement. Other than my brief flirtation with Arminian theology, I have been pretty consistent as a Calvinist in all my writing. I have a series on it in the Articles tab.
So, yes, it is God who determines if you’re saved or otherwise, not you. I’m sorry if I ruined your misguided sense of individuality and your “I’m-the-master-of-my-own-destiny” feeling of arrogant pride.
Agnostic Bruce Gerencser, host of the blog NW Ohio Skeptics, has this to say:
Ah yes, The Bible says so, so you are wrong argument. (an argument we must accept by faith since there is no rational proof of Corey’s claim)
It is self-evident to all who are willing to see it, that most people adopt the religion of their tribe. (family, social group) People believe what those before them believed until confronted with beliefs/truth/evidence that challenges their tribal religion.
In Calvinism everything is settled. God has predetermined everything, including the fact that I am writing this comment. Thank you God.
(and I was a Calvinistic Baptist pastor)
I surely hope that Corey is not going to try and argue against John’s book with the Bible. If so………it shall indeed be a wasted exercise. But, Hey maybe it will drive up this site’s visitor count.
I never forwarded the argument that “The Bible says so, so you are wrong.” I agreed that Loftus was right, and showed that it is consistent with the Bible. I also completely agreed with the fact that most people adopt the religion of their parents or culture. It was central to the point of my post. What I have simply said is that such a claim is not a valid argument against the truth claims of any religion.
I have never, at least no place that I’m aware of, said that God predetermines everything positively. There are some things he predetermines negatively, which means they arise naturally as a consequence of that which he has decreed. So the whole of God’s plan looks less like a completed novel and more like the text of a Dungeons & Dragons adventure. Pardon introducing an example of something seen as evil by most Christians, but it is perfectly consistent with what I’m trying to say.
A D&D adventure sets the scene up by explaining what the players see, and then accounts for a few possible scenarios in the Dungeon Master’s notes. The resolution of the scene is left to the player characters. So God sets our lives up, but expects us to live them out. His blueprint for so doing is the Bible, but we obviously don’t follow that very well. Some things don’t go according to plan, but this never trumps or circumvents God’s will. He still accomplishes all he sets out to do.
This post started getting way, way too long. So I will answer the other skeptics in future posts.
Inherited Religion?
John W. Loftus is all about error. It’s sad and funny at the same time. This time, he’s on about a typical atheist talking point: the fact that religion is inherited from the culture.
Of course, this does nothing to impugn the credibility of a particular religion. Truth is still truth. The argument isn’t an attack on the truth claims of Christianity. Instead, it seeks to use human nature against religion. It is not in dispute that we inherit beliefs unquestioningly from our parents and culture. Likewise, there is no dispute that we like to feel special and good. But how does this argue against any particular religion?
Loftus has this to say:
Why do they [Christians] think they are privileged to be born in the right time and place when others are not? If there is a God why would he privilege them like this? Why? It’s the natural tendency we humans have for thinking we’re special, that’s why. All ancient societies built temples to their gods which they thought were located directly on the center of the world. This thinking is still being embraced by Christians in many ways for they claim their geographical religion is where God has revealed himself and can be known. (source)
People tend to inherit the religion of their parents. Big whop. Does that mean we are privileged? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about it:
- All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. (Jn 6:37, 44, 64-65)
- And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
- And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom 8:28-29, the so-called Golden Chain of Redemption)
- So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom 9:16)
- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:3-6)
- In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:11-12)
- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)
So, since God can determine everything about us (he foreknows us, Rom 8:29, see also Ps 139), it stands to reason that the place and time of our birth is under his control as well. That would mean geographically inherited religion is nothing less than a mechanism by which God can predestine his elect.
God: Self-Serving or Narcissistic for Judgment?
The author of this post, who goes by Skinny Sushi, identifies herself as an agnostic. She and her husband were both raised Mormon, but for various reasons have walked away from the church. It seems that her primary reasons have to do with God’s judgment:
And any God who might be out there… wouldn’t he/she/it be rather pleased I’ve lived a good life and been kind to others? There’s just something about the notion of an all powerful being who will punish me for not believing despite the quality of my life that seems a little… self serving? Narcissistic?
In regard to the first point, Paul addressed this in the second chapter of Romans:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
So Sushi is right. People who do the Law without the Law are their own Law. No need for any divine intervention there. And, many people are good for goodness sake–without the Law. Read the rest of this entry
The Preexistence of Jesus
I just found Human Jesus Theology, a blog that seems ostensibly Christian, though the theology is a bit skewed. For example, in this post, author Jeffery W. Campbell takes a passage often used to establish the deity and preexistence of Jesus and argue that it does no such thing.
John 8:58 reads, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'” It is Campbell’s argument that this passage doesn’t establish the preexistence of Jesus because the name I AM from Exodus 3:14 isn’t the name of God.
Of course, to make this argument convincing, Campbell has to go to the Septuagint. It should be noted that the Septuagint is not the original language of the Old Testament; the Septuagint was written in Greek, but the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
Even if this was a convincing argument, Campbell is ignoring other passages that unambiguously establish the preexistence of Jesus. Start with John 1:1-5:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
The “Word” of verse 1 is defined as Jesus in verses 14-18:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
Paul establishes the preexistence of Christ as well. In his letter to the Colossians 1:15-20, the apostle writes of Jesus:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Campbell can argue against one passage, but nothing in the Bible exists in a vacuum apart from everything else. There are numerous verses that establish the preexistence of Christ, which is why it is one of the core tenets of the Christian faith. John 8:53, while important, isn’t the cornerstone upon which the preexistence of Jesus is built.
Back Rome Again 