He Lives

The Old Testament Canon

2009-11-24T15:32:00.003-05:00

(From a recent Sunday School)

Examining the table of contents of a Protestant and Catholic bible, we find that the Catholic bible contains seven extra books known as the Apocrypha. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. In addition, Catholic Bibles contain an additional six chapters in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel.

These books date from the period in between the old and new testaments.

These books are called "Apocryphal" not because the authors are unknown (for there are some canonical books whose authors are unknown) but probably, as Augustine says, because they are of an uncertain and obscure origin.

Why does the Catholic bible include the Apocrypha, while the Protestant bible includes only the part called "The Law (of Moses), the Prophets, and the Writings (Wisdom Books)?"

The answer comes from looking at the difference between two old testament canons that existed at the time of Christ: the Palestinian canon and the Alexandrian canon. The Palestinian canon did not include the Apocrypha; the Alexandrian canon used by that region's Hellenized Jews did include the extra books.

So the question is: which of these two Jewish canons should we receive as the Old Testament?

The Reformers rejected the Apocrypha because they were persuaded that it was the Palestinian canon that was recognized by the Jews of Palestine during Christ's time—and that Jesus himself would have used a canon that did not contain the Apocrypha.

It is something like an "it was good enough for Jesus so it's good enough for me" argument. But not completely.

The reformed theologian Francis Turretin (1623-1687—he is described by John Gerstner as "the most precise theologian in the Calvinistic tradition") wrote:

The Jewish church, to which the oracles of God were committed (Rom 3:2) never considered [the Apocrypha] as canonical, but held the same canon as us (as is admitted by Josephus, Against Apion 1.39-41)… They are never quoted as canonical by Christ and the apostles like the others. And Christ, by dividing all the books of the Old Testament into three classes (the law, the Psalms and the prophets, Lk. 24:44), clearly approves of the canon of the Jews and excludes from it those books which are not embraced in these classes. (3) The Christian church for four hundred years rec¬ognized with us the same and no other canonical books… The authors were neither prophets and inspired men, since they wrote after Malachi (the last of the prophets); nor were their books written in the Hebrew language (as those of the Old Testament), but in Greek. Hence Josephus (in the passage referred to above) acknowledges that those things which were written by his people after the time of Artaxerxes were not equally credible and authoritative with those which preceded "on account of there not being an indisputable succession of prophets"

Turretin's reference to Christ's words is worth examining:

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24:24)

As an aside, sometimes the debate over "the law" of the Old Testament is more confused than necessary because when a New Testament reference is made to "the Law" it not be referring to, say, the Ten Commandments but rather the books written by Mosses.

Thus, Turretin argues, Christ specifically mentions the three sections which we receive as canonical and omits the Apocrypha.

We also pay attention to Turretin's argument:

The authors (of the Apocryphal books) were neither prophets and inspired men, since they wrote after Malachi (the last of the prophets);

This is important. The first requirement for inclusion in the New Testament was that the writer was an apostle or carried the imprimatur of an apostle. (Exceptions to this rule not withstanding.) What applied to the apostles in the New Testament applied to the prophets in the Old Testament.

So in summary: the Reformers arguments for excluding the Apocrypha are: 1) The Old Testament used by Jesus in Palestine would not have contained them, and he never quoted from them and 2) They were not written by a prophet.

Of course this does not mean that the Protestant view is that these books are garbage. On the contrary, they both interesting and informative. This is not like when formulating the New Testament canon when utter nonsense like The Gospel of Thomas was excluded--the Apocrypha were judged by the Reformers to be non-canonical, but not to be nonsense.

New blog

2009-11-24T12:15:00.000-05:00

This one from my better half.

Stay out of my way today...

2009-11-23T14:14:00.000-05:00

The end of the semester rush. The Steelers lost to the Kansas City Chiefs. The Kansas City Chiefs! And the NASCAR season ended with that Spawn of Satan Jimmie Johnson winning a fourth straight title. Grrr. Well at least:

Countdown To 2010 Daytona 500

The Miracle of an Almost Flood?

2009-11-13T09:11:00.007-05:00

Our house is near the end of a cul-de-sac, one house away from suburban fake-lake-front status, the lake being of the small man-made variety that, when a development is planned, must seem like a good idea.

Yesterday a fearsome Nor'easter visited our area. It had a minor perfect-storm nature, with the tidal surge blocking the normal low tide recession, which in turn set us up to be walloped by the next high tide.

So I go home and move everything to high ground—having been forewarned by our neighbors that flooding is possible. (But not by the US Government, which assured me when purchasing this house that it was not in a flood zone.)

The wind, at least its net direction, came across the lake on a beeline to our street, urging the water to come along for the ride. I watched the water rise, getting closer to its port of entry (my garage)—and then it stopped. I may have some in the crawlspace, I haven't checked yet, but nothing got into the house. No damage. The next cul-de-sac, which I can see out of my back windows, looked like the Amazon.

It was truly, truly, a miracle—a testimony to the efficacy of prayer.

Actually it wasn't.

In fact, I never once prayed: Lord, please keep the water out of our house.

I don't have a good grasp on the theology of prayer—to me the bible sends mixed signals. But I believe that prayer never results in God changing his mind, nor causes God to intervene where he wasn't going to intervene in the first place. In that sense, I am not surprised with those studies that show no effect of prayer on outcomes—even if they are, I suspect, highly flawed.

When I pray regarding disasters or catastrophic illness or the like, it is always some variant of: Lord may the Christians involved, either those being afflicted or those providing mercy, bring glory to your name. It may be longer than that—although I am notoriously terse in my prayers, and it will certainly be customized and personalized to the situation—but it will inevitably boil down to may the Christians in this situation bring you glory.

That is not to say that I think it is wrong to pray for something. But I think it should be done in the sense that we have been granted the privilege to tell the creator of the universe what we want. He has not, however, granted us the power to change his mind.

That's how I see it. But again, I think a comprehensive theology on prayer based on the bible is beyond my abilities.

No schism here. Nothing to see. Please move along.

2009-11-09T15:02:00.004-05:00

In rather weird, surrealistic piece in the Guardian Ophelia Benson (site) first argues that atheism cannot be a movement--only to spend the rest of the article describing a primal disagreement between what she calls "plain atheists" and "movement atheists." There are movement atheists even though atheism can never, under any circumstances, be a movement. The term is warranted, according to Benson, because non-movement atheism can include a movement.

To Ophelia Benson if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's … not a duck. It includes a duck. To Benson a distinction without a difference is a substantive distinction indeed.

PZ Myers agrees with Benson, couching his argument differently. He writes in terms of the impossibility of atheist schism.

Myers's attempt at reasoning is this: to have a schism you must have dogma. Since atheists have no central dogma, being united only by a lack of belief, they give no quarter to schism.

Oh, Myers admits, for sure they can have any number of heated disagreements. But it's not a schism, because schism refers to religious fractionation.

Sorry—the distinction is lost on this blogger.

Bear in mind in no way am I advocating that tiresome argument that atheism is a religion. It's not. It if is, then the noun religion has no meaning. What I am disputing is the claim that "All that atheism means is that we don't believe in gods" precludes a schism. After all, "All Christianity means is that we believe Jesus is the long awaited Messiah" has a certain truth to it, and yet obviously doesn't rule out schism.

Schism, according to the first definition on dictionary.com, means: division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties. Now, is that not what Benson is describing when she discusses plain atheists and movement atheists? Is that not what PZ rails about with clock-like frequency? Is that not what Coyne whines about on a near daily basis?

Furthermore the "movement atheists" are in fact identified by dogma, at least by any other name. Among the creedal claims:

Science and religion are incompatible
Science is the only way we know things
Religion has a net negative impact on society
Atheists should be outspoken
Atheists are persecuted

Furthermore the movement atheists have requisite pejorative names for the apostate: Accomodationists. Appeasers. And Coyne's muddleheaded faitheists.

A set of core beliefs that distinguishes plain atheists from movement atheists. Name-calling—and even contests (such as Coyne held) to come up with a suitably derogatory term (faitheist) for atheists in the opposing camp. And a huge corpus of writings casting aspersions on those who challenge the creed.

Call it what you like--except schism. Because it's nothing like that.

Quack.

Best. Excuse. Ever.

2009-11-06T14:54:00.007-05:00

If you follow these things, you are no doubt aware that there is a theory (a real theory--no kidding) that the European Large Hadron Collider is being sabotaged from the future. The elusive fundamental particle known as the Higgs Boson, the raison d'être for the LHC, does not want to be discovered. And it's prepared to do something about it.

Case in point: the LHC has experienced another setback. It's restart has been thwarted by---bird crumbs. (Well, that's what the Higgs wants you to think.)

But we know what the Higgs is up to. We know it's behind this. From the linked article:

But the difficulties faced by those working on the project have prompted some members of the scientific community to speculate, in all seriousness, that the machine is sabotaging itself — from the future.

The theory is that the particle that physicists hope to produce might be "abhorrent to nature," so that once created it would work backwards through time to put a stop to whatever created it.

Hmm...maybe science and religion really are incompatible!

You might recall that 15 years or so ago congress killed a well-under-way homegrown super-accelerator Higgs-detecting project in the US--the SSC (Superconducting Supercollider-- the US is much better at naming stuff than those boring Europeans.) It appears that the Higgs, at that time, used the strategy of hiring lobbyists to persuade politicians to kill the project. With the LHC it is having much more fun.

Jerry Coyne is so predictable and boring...

2009-11-05T11:21:00.005-05:00

Now he has written a six point manifesto on his unholy of unholies: accommodationism .

It is standard boilerplate crapola—but nobody can do it quite as badly as Coyne.

He fails, epically, in point one:

1. I see faith and science as epistemically incompatible, though of course some religious people can accept evolution and some scientists can be religious. This cognitive dissonance does not, however, show anything more than that people can simultaneously hold in their heads two philosophically incompatible approaches to the world.

As is always, always the case the explain-everything explain-nothing catchphrase cognitive dissonance is misused. It doesn't mean what Coyne thinks it means.

This is what it really means:

Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable sense of tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

I am perhaps going out on a limb in assuming that none of the religious scientists on Coyne's radar has contacted him and fessed up to "feeling an uncomfortable tension."

Jerry? Hi, Ken Miller here. You know my love of science and my Catholicism? Well don't tell anybody but I'm feeling really uncomfortable holding on to both.

We therefore can safely conclude that Coyne is rather stupidly using this incorrect definition:

Cognitive dissonance according to Jerry Coyne is a feeling of annoyance produced in Jerry Coyne when Jerry Coyne encounters someone that holds two ideas that Jerry Coyne believes are in conflict. Jerry Coyne is the supreme arbiter of all who suffer from cognitive dissonance.

If I too may use a customized definition of cognitive dissonance, then I declare that since Jerry Coyne holds two views, 1) appreciation of science and 2) atheism-- two views that I find to be in conflict, then by the same manner in which Jerry makes his incorrect diagnosis, I declare Jerry Coyne to be afflicted with severe cognitive dissonance.

Isn't that easy?

His points two and three are, as mentioned, standard. He tells us what he thinks the NCSE should do. That is certainly his right—although why they should listen to him is something of a mystery. He tells us that he likes the likes of Ken Miller, but reserves the right to criticize him—as if that right was somehow in jeopardy. Really Jerry, do you think any religious person gives a rat's ass about your criticism of religion? The paranoid claim of new atheists that "we aren't allowed to criticize" is utter nonsense.

I agree with his point four:

4. I see no conclusive evidence that vocal atheism is forcing Americans to choose between science and religion, pushing them back into the creationist corner.

And would even make it stronger: there is also no conclusive evidence that vocal atheism is causing anyone to lose their faith. In as much as it causes reluctant atheists to emerge from the closet—that's a good thing for all—a win-win.

Points five and six are mostly redundant, self-aggrandizing statements about how Jerry and Dawkins are out to save America and the world for rational thought. The name dropping reminds me of an email I once got from Dembski informing me, in effect, that people such as himself, Wells, Johnson, etc were laying the groundwork and everyone else should follow or get out of the way.

Christmas Carol Miscellanea

2009-11-04T10:02:00.001-05:00

No doubt he most important Christmas carol miscellanea is that Joy to the World is about the second advent, not the first. That is, it's not a Christmas song at all. (It's a nice postmillennialist hymn, if you ask me. Which you didn't. I'm just saying.)

But the one to discuss today is, sans punctuation, God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen. There is, apparently, a long-standing heated debate about where the comma belongs in the title. Is it:

A) God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen

B) God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen

The correct answer is A. (The answer is always A.) In contemporary English rest meant keep as in maintain. So the title can be paraphrased: God keep you merry, gentlemen. Not God keep you, merry gentleman. For these and all men their merriment, as it were, rested on God's sovereignty, as do all things.

Only a Pelagian would place the comma in the blasphemous position indicated by choice B.

Okay, all kidding aside, it really does belong as in choice A, for the reason I mentioned, before I got silly. Or kind of silly.

Astronomy Homework

2009-11-03T16:32:00.003-05:00

Just for fun--the current homework assignment for my Astronomy class. (It is for freshmen non-science-majors.)

1. Which one of the following statements is NOT a consequence of the postulates of special relativity?

A) The wavelength emitted from a source moving with respect to an observer is different from the wavelength measured by an observer who is moving along with the source.

B) A clock moving with respect to an observer ticks more slowly than when measured by an observer who is moving along with the clock.

C) The length of an object moving with respect to an observer is shorter than it is when measured by a different observer moving along with the object.

D) The mass of an object moving with respect to an observer is larger than the mass measured by a different observer who is at rest with respect to the object.

2. Einstein's theory of special relativity contains some very strange ideas such as time dilation (moving clocks run slow), length contraction (moving lengths are shorter), and lack of absolute simultaneity. What is the basis of these ideas?

A) The speed of light is the same for all observers in all reference frames.

B) New technologies allow more precise measurements of length and time than had been possible in Newton's era, and the theory had to be reworked to fit this new evidence.

C) The ether (the medium that supports the passage of light) proved to be denser than originally thought.

D) The fabric of spacetime is dominated by black holes.

3. According to general relativity, why does Earth orbit the Sun?

A) Space around the Sun is curved, and Earth follows a geodesic in this curved space.

B) Matter contains quarks, and Earth and the Sun attract each other with the “color force” between their quarks.

C) The Sun exerts a gravitational force on Earth across empty space.

D) Earth and the Sun are continually exchanging photons of light in a way that holds Earth in orbit.

4. A black hole is so named because

A) no light can escape from it due to its powerful gravitational field.

B) it emits no visible light because it is so cold, less than 100 K.

C) the gravitational field is so high that the wavelength of its emitted light is gravitationally redshifted to radio wavelengths.

D) it is colder that the rest of the universe; that is, its effective temperature is less than 3 K.

5. What is a singularity?

A) point of infinite density

B) tunnel into another universe

C) point at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole

D) particle-antiparticle pair

6. The Schwarzschild radius is

A) the distance from the center of a black hole to the point at which the escape velocity becomes equal to the speed of light.

B) the distance to which gas is ejected in a planetary nebula.

C) half the diameter of a neutron star.

D) half the diameter of the singularity in a black hole.

7. What is the ergoregion of a Kerr black hole?

A) region outside the event horizon where objects cannot remain at rest without falling into the black hole

B) region inside the event horizon where virtual particles are created from the vacuum of space

C) inner part of the accretion disk where X rays are generated

D) region between the event horizon and the singularity from which nothing can escape

8. What appears to happen to a clock as it approaches and reaches the event horizon around a black hole when viewed by a remote observer?

A) Time appears to slow down and stop.

B) Time appears to pass at a much faster rate, becoming infinitely fast at the event horizon.

C) Time speeds up because of the intensified gravitational field.

D) Time ticks uniformly since nothing changes the progress of time.

9. What mechanism in the vicinity of a star gives us a hint of the presence of a black hole as a companion to the star?

A) Gas from the star, falling in toward a black hole, is compressed to very high densities and temperatures so that it emits an intense and rapidly fluctuating flux of X rays.

B) The star periodically disappears from the viewpoint of Earth during its eclipses by the black hole as the two objects orbit each other.

C) The space near the star darkens, indicating that the black hole prevents the light from distant objects from reaching Earth.

D) The light from the companion star shows extreme redshift because of the gravitational field of the black hole.

10. Gamma-ray bursters are great distances from Earth, yet Earth receives tremendous amounts of energy from them. Explain.

A) The energy is released along jets rather than uniformly in all directions. If Earth is in the path of one of these jets, we see a gamma-ray burster.

B) A gamma-ray burster represents the explosion of an entire galaxy.

C) Gamma-ray bursters are supermassive stars, equivalent to 100,000 ordinary supernovae.

D) The gamma radiation from a burster is released in all directions, but then it is focused in the direction of the Earth by gravitational lensing.

11. If nothing can ever leave a black hole, can the mass of a black hole ever decrease?

A) yes, if particle-antiparticle pairs are created outside the event horizon out of gravitational energy from the black hole and one particle enters the event horizon while the other escapes

B) yes, if antiparticles enter a black hole and annihilate with matter already inside the black hole

C) yes, if the matter inside the black hole is radioactive (e.g., uranium), allowing their decay products—alpha particles, electrons, and gamma rays—to constantly leave the black hole

D) no

12. (Extra Credit) Through whom is the only path to salvation?

A) Jesus Christ

B) Bill Buckner

C) Joe the Plumber

D) Angry Al Gore

(Okay, the last question is not really on the assignment, so don't notify my dean. Just wanted to wake you up.)

I'm late on this but it is of such

2009-11-03T14:52:00.004-05:00

monumental stupidity that I could not let it pass unrecognized. I'm referring, of course, to the (sigh) Baptist jackass pastor who planned to burn bibles--excepting of course the "it was good enough for Jesus so it's good enough for me" KJVs. Some chowderhead by the name of Pastor Marc Grizzard says than non-KJV translations are Satanic.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--of all the areas in which people draw a line in the sand where there should be none--I can't think of any that is as inexplicable, indefensible, and downright dumb as the non-biblical dogma proclaimed by KJV-only cult. Madness.

Oh my. Pastor Grizzard's declaration of victory:

We wanted to say that the Book Burning was a great success. It was a success because God's Word was glorified and uplifted. God magnifies His Word above His name, and so do we. The video of the entire service will be up in a few days. We wanted to thank all the Bible doubters who prayed for rain with us. All the protestors and media got wet; we were inside where it was nice and dry. Someone said that we were “hiding” out, but that is not so. The Chief Deputy asked us to keep everything inside, and we agreed, so we were obeying those in authority. We also have others that rent spaces in that same building that we have to respect. This event was successful not because of the rain, it was just an added blessing. A blessing in the sense that less people came out to protest, and there were no problems. We are not glad people got wet, we are glad that His Word was honored. Some have written praising God that he intervened and stopped the Book Burning because of the rain, protestors, and state laws about burning paper. Nothing was stopped. Our goal was to destroy garbage as noted below, and we did just that. We didn't care how it was destroyed; only that it was destroyed. These same people must have never heard about "Paper, Rock, & Scissors." Scissors cut paper, and paper tears real easy. We destroyed everything as planned. Praise God! God answered every prayer that everyone prayed, but they don't like the answer.

Sounds ever-so-much like the ministry of the Apostle Paul, don't you think?

An apology for Apologetics

2009-11-02T16:07:00.002-05:00

(From a recent Sunday School)

The late John Gerstner gave the following reasons for apologetics:

1. People who argue against arguments (That is, Christians who claim that apologetics are unseemly, reason is unreliable, and only unquestioning faith is virtuous) are, in fact, making arguments. They are using their heads to justify not using their heads. To provide reasons for not using reason is simply not very smart.

2. You will encounter those who will, as they should, ask why. You need a because that is more substantive than just because.

3. When sane people appear to be against reason, they actually are not. When Tertullian said he believed (in God) because it was absurd (as opposed to logical) he was in fact saying that it was logical that the ways of an infinite, Holy God should (by reason) appear absurd to fallen creatures.

4. If Christianity claims to be true, then it requires prove. If we only needed to claim truth, the Christianity would be established, as would Mormonism, Scientology, Islam, and all other religions. Proof is not just for the atheist, but also the believer. As Chillingsworth put it:

I am certain that God has given us our reason to discern between truth and falsehood, and he who makes no use of it, but believes things he knows not why, I say, it is by chance that he believes the truth and not by choice; and I cannot but fear that God will not accept the sacrifice of fools.

Even when we jettison reason in favor of experience, we are actually reasoning. The very primitive reason is this: I have had an experience, and that experience could only come from God. But this reasoning is very weak, and requires the listener to take the speaker’s word for it. The apologist who has only experience is in a position of extreme weakness, like the Moody Bible student who witnessed about Christ in her life to a University of Chicago professor. The scholar, through probing questions that she could not begin to answer, eventually had her doubting her own salvation. She was right and he was wrong, but she didn't know her apologetics. She had the proof but didn't know how to express it, and ultimately believed she didn't have it.

5. Christ proved He was who He claimed to be.

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. (John 14:11)

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." (Matt. 9:6)

Before healing the paralytic, Jesus forgave him of his sins, thus claiming His divinity. He then did not say: believe it or not. Rather he went on to prove His divinity by means that no rational person could deny.

6. The bible testifies to its own inspiration, but not through circular reasoning. The gospels have proven historically reliable, and they testify to a miracle working Jesus, miracles of which His enemies do not deny but rather attempt to attribute to Satan.

7. Through apologetics we demonstrate that the Creator is God, that God certifies His Son, that His Son certifies the Word, and that the Word certifies the gospel.

Ravi Zacharias

2009-10-07T16:57:00.001-04:00

On Francis Collins, DNA, and special needs children.

These people are nuts

2009-10-05T13:54:00.004-04:00

The people at Conservapedia are launching a Conservative Bible Project. The purpose is to remove liberal bias in modern translations.

Let's be clear here. They are talking political liberal bias. Okay they mix in some, well maybe one, legitimate issue, the unisexing of the TNIV. But they are more concerned about lessons from the bible that aren't aligned with editorial positions of the Wall Street Journal or the National Review.

As of 2009, their announcement warns, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible. Wrap your exegetical arms around that.

They don't like the ESV which is, in my opinion, the best English translation in existence. They complain:

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Here are the uses of comrade in the ESV:

¹³When Gideon came, behold, a man was telling a dream to his comrade. And he said, "Behold, I dreamed a dream, and behold, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent and struck it so that it fell and turned it upside down, so that the tent lay flat." ¹⁴ And his comrade answered, "This is no other than the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel; God has given into his hand Midian and all the camp."

²²When they blew the 300 trumpets, the LORD set every man’s sword against his comrade and against all the army. And the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath. (Judges 7:13-14,22)

I feel Marxist already.

Did the Conservapedians even realize that it's not about Gideon's army that the awful socialistic term comrade is being applied? It's applied to the bad guys, the Midianites. One would think they'd approve.

What do you suppose they'll make of this:

³²Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. ³³And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold ³⁵and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

One can only imagine.

HT, it pains me to say, to Pharyngula.

Happy Blasphemy Day

2009-09-30T11:19:00.002-04:00

In case you don't know it, today is International Blasphemy Day.

What is interesting about Blasphemy Day is that those who are celebrating cannot, despite their best efforts, increase the level of their blasphemy. Their unbelief already constitutes blaspheming to the superlative degree. Whatever tiny Blasphemy Day rituals they perform (such as trading their souls for cookies) are in the noise.

God cannot be any more angry at the happy blasphemers than He already is.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness (Rom 1:18)

The word translated as 'wrath' suggests intense fury. God is furious with those who suppress the truth—i.e., unbelievers. God is not going to be "a wee bit more furious" because you mock him in a song, a painting or a board game. Your crime is already a capital offense—and you can't get sentenced to consecutive eternities, or eternity plus a few millennia.

The free-speech reasons given for Blasphemy Day are, at least in most of the world, totally bogus. You know that, I know that, and atheists know that. In the U.S. people like PZ Myers can blaspheme (or, more accurately, conduct activities that he perceives as blasphemous) 24/7 to a large audience. He doesn't get arrested. He doesn't get fired. His right to free speech is unhindered. If some nutcase harms or threatens him, it would be a crime, not state-sponsored retribution.

The actual reason, everyone knows, is to mock religion. Hopefully to piss off some of the religious—which has indeed happened. This is cage-rattling, pure and simple. In my opinion the appropriate Christian response is not to get angry over Blasphemy Day. It is either to ignore it or to treat it with a kind of detached bemusement. Remind them that what they are doing has no effect on their eternal soul. Something like:

Unbeliever : Basphemy Day Activity :: Hitler : Jaywalking

And who cares about mocking? Mocking is perfectly acceptable and, if clever, which it usually is not, can even be funny.

Mock away. I don't require that atheists "respect" my religion and refrain from mocking me or it. After all, fair is fair: I certainly do not respect their decision, which I see as a cosmic folly, and I am not above mocking atheism from time to time. The only truly important issue is the freedom we both share to practice our beliefs or nonbeliefs. There is no need for us to respect one another's beliefs or nonbleliefs, or to refrain from mocking. I certainly won't cease and desist mocking unintelligent arguments from the likes of Jerry Coyne or Russell Blackford, or the total nutwhackery of a (atheist award winning) Bill Maher or a Sam Harris.

God's Humorous Theodicy

2009-09-29T10:09:00.002-04:00

The second most humorous passage^† in the bible, according to this critic, is Abraham's bargaining on behalf of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. But there is a great lesson to be learned from this encounter.

In Genesis 18, as you recall, God is threatening to destroy Sodom. Abraham asks a rhetorical question: "Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" He then spices it up with what sounds a bit impertinent: "Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!"

God responds with the statement: "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

The reader begins to chuckle here, and in doing so may, as I did, miss the point. God is not merely promising: I will spare the righteous. He is saying much more. He is saying that if the righteous are found, he will even spare the wicked on their behalf. The wicked shall, from that moment forward, owe their lives to the existence of the righteous.

The hilarious bargaining then ensues:

²⁷Abraham answered and said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. ²⁸Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?" And he said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there." ²⁹Again he spoke to him and said, "Suppose forty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of forty I will not do it." ³⁰Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there." He answered, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there." ³¹He said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it." ³²Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." (Gen 18:27-32)

God, like a divine Diogenes, sought these ten righteous men. Apparently he didn't find them.

Abraham was not a strong enough negotiator. No Teamster was he. He could have negotiated God down to one. For the lesson here is not that there may have been seven or nine righteous, though definitely not ten, but that none were righteous. No, not one.

I used to think of it this way: everybody in Sodom was wicked, all were lost. Unsaved. Reprobate. Unbelievers. Whatever term you like. But that is not necessarily the case. There may have been many saved people in Sodom—and they were annihilated along with the lost. But on that day no righteous man died. That, in fact, has happened only once.

Abraham's question to God was essentially the same as Rabbi Kushner's "Why do bad things happen to good people?" For Abraham asks, in effect, surely a holy God will not kill the righteous along with the unrighteous? God's answer to Abraham is: I won't. His answer to Rabbi Kushner is: They don't.

^† Number one goes to that rascal Gideon. When the angel of the Lord (which is a theophany, see Judges 6:23) first appears:

And the angel of the LORD appeared to him [Gideon] and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O mighty man of valor." (Judges 6:12)

Now our complete picture of Gideon tells us that in all likelihood the last thing he considered himself, at least at that time, was a man of valor. You can easily imagine him replying: "Are you talking to me?" It is like when someone would address the Three Stooges as "gentlemen."

But an even funnier exchange occurs just a bit later:

And he [Gideon] said to him [the Lord], "If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speaks with me. Please do not depart from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you." And he [the Lord] said, "I will stay till you return." (Judges 6:17-18)

Here Gideon asks God to stick around while he runs inside to get something, God answers, probably tapping his feet: "Go on, take your time. I'll wait." You just have to love it.

Gideon returns and God displays his pleasure with Gideon's gift by, um, burning it to ashes.

Venn Diagrams are your Friend

2009-09-23T14:27:00.005-04:00

The diagram in the previous post brings to mind the venerable Venn diagram. Few constructs have the power to display a concept as succinctly and clearly as a Venn diagram.

In Christianity a Venn diagram that often shows up is one that reflects St. Augustine's notion of a visible and invisible church. The former is the set of professed believers, the latter is the set of actual believers.

We can extend this using some modern internet terminology. "Self-Identified Christians" and True Christians™. The little trademark symbol is used in a pejorative manner—atheists will tack it on to mock the notion that only some Christians are legitimate. It is used as a tiny symbolic form of the "No True Scotsman fallacy" charge. But I kind of like it—the symbol that is—so I'll accept it with gratitude from my atheist comrades, in the spirit in which it was not intended.

For the most part the atheist Venn diagram for Christians is:

That is, they self-righteously make no distinction between those who claim to be Christians and those who have a saving faith. Whether this is out of actual ignorance or feigned ignorance for convenience I can't say—but I suspect mostly the latter. For it allows them to say: Fred Phelps claims to be a Christian, who am I to say he is not? As far as I'm concerned he just as much a Christian as anyone else. But atheists read the bible, they know that a Christian is to be judged by his fruit—so neither we nor they are at the mercy of accepting someone's word.

Not all internet atheists are so silly. Jason Rosenhouse once gave an example that I have used many times since. He argued something along the lines of this: if someone claims I am a Christian, I believe in Jesus. And I believe in Elvis. And I believe Elvis is Jesus then it would make no sense to accept his claim of legitimate Christianity. Bravo Jason.

No, the actual Venn diagram is the same as Augustine's:

The fascinating groups are those who, on either side, fall outside the intersection. The Self-Identified Christians who are not True Christians™ come in at least two groups: the charlatans and the self-delusional. Where is Benny Hinn? My guess: in the charlatan category. Where is Fred Phelps? My guess: in the self-delusional category. Based on his fruit I judge him, as commanded, this way: that unless, someday, he is truly regenerated he'll one day hear those frightful words: I never knew you. Of course my judgment doesn't count for squat--it only means that I refuse to accept Fred Phelps as a Christian. The point is: I am supposed to judge--I am am supposed to withhold the holy from dogs.

On the other side are equally fascinating people: True Christians™ who are not Self-Identified Christians. We have reason to be hopeful that this includes dead infants and the mentally handicapped. I personally believe it also includes people who have not heard the gospel but who have been evangelized by creation. And people who have been mislead. In any event, the bottom line: it can include anyone God wants it to include.

God is not omni-everything

2009-09-23T11:45:00.005-04:00

The attributes of God are all good--on this we can agree. But there is something about God's attributes that may surprise you: they can be in tension--and this prevents some from being "omni" attributes. For example, God is just and God is merciful. But those attributes are in conflict—mercy is not a subset of justice. In fact it is orthogonal--as we'll discuss later.

When discussing God's attributes it is worth reminding ourselves what we all know: there is only one attribute of God that is described in the Hebrew superlative: God is holy, holy, holy. No other attribute is described in that manner. Nowhere is God described as just, just, just, or love, love, love.

Aside: what does holy mean? I don't know. Not really. I can catch glimpses of it—especially when Isaiah has his vision (Woe is me—I am unraveled!) Whatever it is, it is the defining attribute of God, the trump card. I am persuaded that our ability to understand God is severely limited by our inability to comprehend holiness.

So in terms of the "omnis" we can at least be certain that God is omniholy. We can further deduce that God is omnipotent—but only if we understand what that means: it means whatever is possible, God can do it. It really means the same thing as saying: God is sovereign. It does not mean that God can do the impossible. If God, as it appears, has created a universe that has no center, then God cannot put us in the center of the universe. Because, well, it has no center. God, in short, cannot violate the law of non-contradiction. Likewise we can, I believe, infer from scripture that God is omniscient and omnipresent. (Another aside: If you think hell is the total absence of God—I say you are wrong. His presence--If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there--may well be a large component of the agony of hell—but I speculate.)

Instead of the prefix omni, some like to use the qualifier infinitely. That is more nebulous—but fine—we can agree that God is infinitely holy, infinitely knowledgeable, etc.

Trouble arises when people insist that God is infinitely X, when the bible clearly indicates that God is most definitely not infinitely X.

A common tactic is to claim that God is omnibenevolent, a presupposition that more than a few Christians would mistakenly accept, and then to display, trivially, that God is in many cases not benevolent—ergo, game over man, no God. We should never fall for this cheap trick. The bible is explicit: God is not benevolent, benevolent, benevolent. Just ask the "ites" who stood in the way of the Jewish conquest of Canaan. Or ask Esau. Instead of infinitely benevolent, God is particularly benevolent. He has mercy not on all, but on those it pleases him to have mercy, such as Jacob. He works in all things for good (in that sense he is all-good, or omnigood, or infinitely good) but he does so only for the benefit of a subset of all people: those who love him (in that sense he is not infinitely benevolent.)

Benevolence is, in fact, in tension with omnipotence of sovereignty. A God that must be benevolent, in all circumstances to all creatures, is a God whose sovereignty is severely restricted, a God who is obligated to behave in a certain manner.

Back to the example of God's justice. God is not just, just, just. Which as we know is a good thing. In our own country there is a movement to make our own judges just, just, just by enforcing mandatory, uniform sentences—with predictably, at times, disastrous results. God's justice is at tension with his mercy--and thankfully he chooses not to be, or rather his nature is not, infinitely just. In a diagram it looks something like this:

God's mercy is at the expense of his justice. He sacrifices being infinitely just in order to be merciful to some. Justice implies uniform sentencing for the same crime—but God has mercy on some. The negative side of non-justice—injustice, is not found in God. Nobody receives a punishment they don't deserve.

Sproul chapter three: Free Will

2009-09-21T17:53:00.002-04:00

Sunday School Lesson Three had to do with the topic of free will, which I have covered many times on this blog.

Sproul presents the classic, libertine, Calvinistic model of free will:

We not only can do whatever we want most at a give instant, we must do whatever we want most.

(As and aside, I always have the irresistible urge to point out that two common criticisms of Calvinism are polar opposites: 1) We are just puppets and 2) We might as well do whatever we want—advice that a puppet could never follow. The second criticism is somewhat closer to the truth.)

Sproul describes this view of free will as the paradoxical sounding free but determined. But it is an antinomy, not a paradox. The will is free, because our choices are controlled internally, by our desires, not by a puppet-master god, and yet it is determined because our desires completely and irresistibly cause our choices.

This should be contrasted to garden-variety determinism, wherein our choices are determined by external forces, be they the laws of physics or a micromanager god.

When coupled with next week’s topic: Original Sin (Total Depravity), which states that fallen man has no desire for God—we see the framework of a theology. If free will operates as Sproul describes (and I believe it does, at least to first order) and if we have no desire for God in our fallen state, then we are in deep, deep kimchee. If nothing intervenes to change the desires of fallen men, then nobody would choose God with their vaunted free will, and nobody would be saved. Jesus would have died in vain.

This lack of desire for God, which precludes our wills from choosing God, is nevertheless not an abdication of free will. It is what Jonathan Edwards called a moral inability.

I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the liberty to choose God.

In the reverse of the usual grammatical correction: It is not that we may not, but rather we can not.

Maybe you like this model of free will. Maybe you don’t. But hear this: there is no secular or humanist model of free will. At least none that I have ever heard. Now some secularists are brutally honest. Cornell biologist William Provine immediately comes to mind, with his famous consequences of pure naturalism:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.

Provine is correct—no free will is possible without God—as far as I can see. We have either strict determinism—we are merely playing out the great differential equation of the universe, or we throw in a dash of quantum indeterminacy to spice up the dish. The latter can never rescue the free will—for all it accomplishes (implausibly, but never mind) is to introduce a bit of randomness. Externally determined choices are not free—and neither are random choices.

To hear a pure naturalist discuss free will is like being in a Swedish movie. Free will is an illusion, they will tell you. And they will go on to tell you that an illusory free will implies that people are not free moral agents. Quite right. So why punish criminals? Not because they are morally responsible—after all their choices were determined for them—but simply to protect society. But of course it is not really to protect society—because that is a moral choice, a free choice, and such things, in their schema, do not exist. No, the equation of the universe has inexorably placed you in a position of entertaining thoughts—over which you have no control--of defending incarceration on the basis of protecting society. Those thoughts are nothing more than particles and atoms and molecules doing their thing. And so on, and so forth, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

A Flea On The Wall

2009-09-18T11:49:00.007-04:00

From the most recent New Atheist Ecumenical Council, the Council on Fatheism, Rationalism, The Cartoonist whose name shall not be spoken--but he who doesn’t understand evolution--which is of Grave Concern, and Xenoglossy.

Cardinal Harris: I renew my suggestion that we conduct these proceedings in Reformed Egyptian.

Pontiff Clinton: Cardinal Harris, please sit down and refrain yourself from further outbursts. Cardinal Hitchens, do you have any, um, medication that will help Cardinal Harris, um, rest?

Cardinal Hitchens: Certainly (hic) Your Worshipfulness (hic).

Layperson Maher: You aren’t giving him a vaccine are you—you know they don’t work and they cause shingles and they make me so mad and…

Cardinal Jerry: No, no, no—just something to help him sleep.

Layperson Maher: It’s not an antibiotic is it? Because if he has bugs in his system then they aren’t making him sick, they took advantage of him being sick and it does no good to kill those innocent bacteria. It’s only rational, after all poisonous snakes and mosquitoes don’t make a clear blue pond into a swamp, they come into a swamp and…

Pontiff Clinton: Mr. Maher, don’t worry, everything is fine. No antibiotics, I promise. Sigh. Now can we move on? Archbishop Zachery, are you prepared to introduce a canon for Our consideration?

Archbishop Zachery: Yes m’lord. I am prepared to present for Your consideration a single canon:

CANON I.-If any syndicated cartoonist or haberdasher saith on his blog or tweeteth in his tweet that the axioms of the New Atheists be not all good and true, let him be anathema.

Pontiff Clinton: Anathema? What’s up with that? What does that mean?

Archbishop Zachery: It means that I may mock him again and again on Holy Pharyngula.

Cardinal Harris: No, torture him!

Pontiff Clinton: Archbishop Zachery, my dear, dear friend. I worry it may be counterproductive to the cause for us to be seen arguing the sacraments with—mere cartoonists and haberdashers.

Archbishop Zachery (Leaning close to the Pontiff and whispering): You owe me Dick—do you know how many books I’ve hocked for you?

Pontiff Clinton: Ahem. Very well then. The Seat accepts Archbishop Zachery’s canon. So let it be written.

Cardinal Hitchens: Is it (hic) time for the banquet?

Pontiff Clinton: Not yet. I believe Cardinal Jerry will introduce some canons?

Cardinal Jerry: Yes, your Super Excellency. I have several. If it pleases the Seat I shall introduce them all at once.

Pontiff Clinton: Yes, that certainly pleases this Seat.

CANON II: Let it be known that number of ways of knowing something is but one. It is not two, and three is simply out of the question. Nay, there is but one path to knowledge, and that path is Science.

CANON III: Let it be known that Science and religion are Incompatible.

CANON IV: If any scientist, journalist, syndicated cartoonist or haberdasher saith with his lips, or saith on his blog, or tweeteth in his tweet, that Science and religion are compatible, let him be not just anathema, but fatheist anathema.

Cardinal Harris: No, torture him!

Pontiff Clinton: Cardinal Jerry, are you saying that we know Science and religion are Incompatible?

Cardinal Jerry: Yes m’lord. Of course m’lord.

Pontiff Clinton: And given CANON II it seems inescapable, does it not, that we know of this Great Incompatibility from Science?

Cardinal Jerry: Yes, that would seem to follow naturally.

Pontiff Clinton: If I recall correctly—though it’s been a while, I’ve been writing books, appearing on the telly and in the motion picture shows, that if we know this by science that it must needs be both testable and falsifiable?

Cardinal Jerry: Yes those are the generally accepted requirements.

Pontiff Clinton: So for completeness I suggest that we enter into this historic record the means by which the knowledge of the Great Incompatibility, which must have arrived by the only possible path, Science, has met those glorious requirements of testability and falsifiability.

<<Crickets Chirping>>

Cardinal Jerry (finally): But, kind sir, it is so obvious!

Pontiff Clinton: Quite right, you are quite right. But still, I fear that some apostate, perhaps that devilish thorn in the flesh fatheist from Brown University, will ungraciously see this as an inconsistency. Methinks he is like a weasel! (Raucous laughter and hilarity ensue for 20 or 30 seconds.)

Cardinal Harris: Torture him!

Cardinal Jerry: Oh crud. Yes m’lord I see the problem. But I think we have a simple solution, If I may?

Pontiff Clinton: you may.

Cardinal Jerry: Well then:

CANON V: Let it be known that the number of things that can be known by some method other than Science is but one. It is not two, and three is simply out of the question. And this one blessed Truth, not known by Science but by Posterior Extractus, is that Science and religion are Incompatible.

Pontiff Clinton: Works for me. So let ‘em all be written. We are adjourned.

Nerd Alert

2009-09-16T08:56:00.003-04:00

I got another new calculator, the HP 35s

It's not like the old HP calculators--but at least it looks like one, not like the previous monstrosity, (which I also own) the HP 33s:

which had (*gasp*) a gender-challenged teal and purple color scheme. It also had an ENTER button that was the same size as the other buttons, rather than over-sized as, I am pretty sure, is commanded somewhere in Leviticus. Madness. At that time, HP was too busy spying on its own employees to design a decent calculator.

Both use the far superior RPN rather than the Euro girly-man algebraic entry. The hideous, little-people algebraic entry requires the cumbersome and obfuscating "equal sign" button as well as the unspeakable crutch of open and close parentheses buttons. Bleh. That's for calculation-phobic biologists and other wordy wimps.

There is, I am told, a way to put these new HP calculators into algebraic mode. Blasphemy. I don't want to know how to do it.

As I have mentioned in the past, a great stupid-calculator-trick is to hand a RPN HP calculator to a student taking an exam who forget his calculator. Just watch him search in vain, with growing anxiety, for the "equals" button! Good fun!

Sproul chapter two: God's Sovereignty

2009-09-14T13:13:00.004-04:00

In our second Sunday School class, we watched Sproul discuss the Sovereignty of God.

Sproul quotes the Westminster Confession:^†

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; (WC III.I)

Sproul relates that when he asked his seminary students whether they agree with this statement, about 30% answered that they did not. He then asked how many of his students were atheists—and of course none of the students answered in the affirmative.

He then argued that this made no sense: if you disagree with the statement from the WCF, you are, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. Affirmation or denial of this statement on the sovereignty of God is not what separates different denominations of Christianity, or what divides the three great monotheistic religions—it is, Sproul reminds us, what distinguishes theists from atheists.

Is Sproul a nutcase, elevating the WCF to a litmus test?

No—he is, while acknowledging his rhetorical device, absolutely correct.

As he goes on to point out, the problem is with the word “ordains”. That word conjures up images of God the puppet master dictating eons ago that I am, at this instant, about to pause my typing to scratch a pesky mosquito bite—ahh that’s better.

No, what the Westminster Divines meant is perhaps made clearer by a modern paraphrase:

What ever happens either a) God decreed it (Let there be…) or b) God permitted it to happen, with no implied endorsement or divine sanction. God could have prevented it.

Sproul argues that if there is something, anything that happened outside of God’s decree and his permissive will—then God is not sovereign. If God is not sovereign—then he is not God.

In 1961 Racecar driver Tony Bettenhausen was killed when a 1¢ cotter pin failed.

In a similar manner, this hypothetical seemingly inconsequential “thing” outside of God’s sovereign control (Sproul calls it a “maverick molecule”) could ultimately run amok and thwart God’s plan, leaving his promises unfulfilled. It could be the broken cotter pin that prevents the Christ from returning.

That is why the bible teaches and we believe exactly what the confession states: God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.

And if you don’t believe that then you are effectively an atheist.

^† He could have, of course, just as easily quoted the London Baptist Confession.

Sunday School: A Theological Survey

2009-09-08T11:59:00.002-04:00

I taught my first Sunday School of the new semester—although not much actual teaching was required. The course is a theological survey, and for the first six weeks we are watching an introduction to Calvinism: R. C. Sproul's DVD Chosen by God, video companion to his accessible, classic book of the same name. Nothing for me to do: I can't teach the subject better than Sproul, not even close. After the video series there will be more for me to do.

This set of Sproul lectures was recorded in 1987. I first saw the VHS tapes, as a newly minted Christian, in the early 90's. At that time I thought Sproul was some wise old guy. Now he looks more like a cool young dude. Sigh.

At one point Sproul lists the contemporary marquee Calvinists. If he re-recorded the lectures today, I suspect he would include John Piper. But back in 1987 the only Baptist Calvinist he mentioned was Roger Nicole. Times they are a-changin'. There are Calvinistic Baptists everywhere.

Baptists going back to their roots should mean, roughly, two things: 1) Back to Calvinism (or "Doctrines of Grace" as Baptists are wont to refer to the theology) and 2) Back to supporting separation of church and state, and to cease meddling in partisan politics. The first is clearly happening. The second—maybe a bit, but it is definitely lagging.

In the first lecture, Sproul describes how all Christian theology falls into one of three broad catageories:

Pelagianism
Semi-Pelagianism (AKA Armininianism)
Augustianianism (AKA Calvinism, Reformed, or Doctrines of Grace)

That's not quite right, because Sproul correctly points out that Pelagianism—essentially the denial of Original Sin, and with it the view that, while unlikely, man can at least in principle live a sinless life and redeem himself, doesn't fall in the pale of Orthodoxy. It is not Christianity. It is heresy.

Semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism is, today, the majority view. In this view grace is required for salvation, but man must call upon some small but nonzero vestigial goodness to accept the gospel in his fallen state, and upon such a decision he will then be regenerated (born again).

Augustianism is the minority report. Those of us, like Sproul, who support this view, believe it is impossible for man to respond positively to the gospel in his fallen state. He must first be born again, and then he'll have the moral ability to respond.

Sproul characterizes the debate between Semi-Pelagians and Augustianians, i.e., Arminians v. Calvinists, as a debate within the family. I agree. Then again, I almost always agree with Sproul—except, darn it, I believe he is a YEC! Bummer, that.

Sproul notes that Semi-Pelagians (which would include Catholics, Lutherans, and many Baptists, just to name a few) agree that those who are saved have been predestined. They have to. Nobody can ignore passages like:

⁴For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…

¹¹In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, (Eph 1:4-5, 11)

Those passages, and others, demand that anyone who believes the bible has to accept the reality of predestination.

The debate is not over predestination—it is over the basis of God's selection prior to the foundation of the world.

The Semi-Pelagian views it as a choice based on foreknowledge—that is God peeked into the future and saw who would accept the gospel. He then "predestined" that group to salvation. (Seems a bit superfluous, no?)

The Augustianian view is that while God can look into the future that wasn't how he decided whom to save. Instead it was a purely sovereign choice, with no regard to what the person would ultimately do good or bad.

More on this anon.

An Embarrassment of Biblical Proportions

2009-09-03T14:04:00.004-04:00

Or: Is Steven Anderson the long lost eighth son of Sceva?

Sigh.

This makes me long for the days when we were one church and we could have a good old-fashioned excommunication that had some real teeth to it. Followed by a pot-luck with rigatoni and green bean casserole.

~~Pastor~~ Apostate Steven Anderson: may you be anathema.

Jerry, Jerry, so much threatiness, and so little time!

2009-09-03T10:11:00.010-04:00

Consider this Coyne post of the general topic (and Coyne's fave):

Scientists (mainly) are either

a) as repulsed by religion as I, Jerry Coyne am, or

b) scum-sucking, lily-livered, good-for-naught, traitorous, accommodationist, fatheistic, Neville Chamberlain, cheese-eating surrender-monkey apostates!

In this particular post, Jerry makes one of New Atheism's two novel arguments: Everything bad comes from religion. ^{1, 2} And at the end of this exercise in intellectualism, Jerry adds:

and our own country almost became a theocracy

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. Are you engaging in hyperbole, badly, or are you really sort of a paranoid John-Bircher type? Look away from your computer and toward the wall. Slowly. Any black-helicopters outside your window?

Really now—you expect such nonsense from your garden-variety screwball commenter on Pharyngula, ³ but not from someone of Coyne's stature.

No Jerry, we did not "almost become a theocracy." And in further news:

Under Herbert Hoover, we did not "almost become an oligarchy"
Under FDR, we did not "almost become a communist state"
Under John Kennedy we did not "almost become a Catholic state"
Under Jimmy Carter we did not "almost become a technocracy"
Under Ronald Reagan we did not "almost become a fascist state"
Under Bill Clinton we did not "almost become a wantonly hedonistic state"
Under Bush 43 we did not "almost become a theocracy" (for completeness)
And under Obama we are not "almost a socialist state with an illegal president"

Making arguments about equal in veracity and substance to those made by the birthers is no way to go through life.

A civics lesson for Jerry. People championing laws that they believe are aligned with their religion (something I don't recommend—but what I think Jerry is talking about, at least in part) is not "almost a theocracy". It's playing by the rules of our constitution. You see Jerry, you'd have to abandon the constitution in order to move our nation into a theocracy. If, for example, I vote for Proposition 8—I am playing by the rule of law. ⁴ If our nation was "almost a theocracy" then there would "almost" not even be a vote, but rather an edict. This is not rocket science.

Say this ten times: Legal Vote ≠ Edict Issued.

The first is what we do. The second is what a theocracy does. Any questions?

Jerry, if you really want to know about theocracies, you should ask a Baptist. We suffered under a Roman theocracy and a Presbyterian theocracy. We can tell you for both practical and biblical reasons why they are a very bad thing. And we can tell you that saying we were "almost a theocracy" is like saying a fish is almost a bicycle.

Aside:

In Coyne's post James Wood is quoted:

Dawkins is an essentially 19th-century figure; he sounds amazingly like Huxley, or the Russell of "Why I am not a Christian."

This is an insult to Russell—perhaps the last, great, intellectual atheist. (Yes I know there are many great intellectuals who are atheists—I'm talking about those who applied their thinking to atheism in substantive and novel ways.) Dawkins is certainly not in Russell's peer group:

Russell : Dawkins :: Sir Laurence Olivier : Keanu Reeves

¹ The other novel argument developed and advanced the New Atheist elite is: If God designed everything, who designed God? If that doesn't make you stop and think, nothing will! Why, the extent to which Dawkins et. al. have advanced the state of intellectual atheism—it boggles the mind.

² Except for the Iraq war—that is excluded on the basis of the Hitchen's Exception. And the occasional torture of a prisoner is okay; that we know as Harris's First Anomaly. And Eastern Mysticism is awarded a get-out-of-jail-free card, known in academic circles as Harris's Second Anomaly.

³ That means you, raven. Any death-cult sightings today?

⁴ For what it is worth, I'd have voted against Proposition 8. What unbelievers do is of no concern to me, as long as it doesn't harm others.

Oh, brother du jour: The ICR on Collins.

2009-09-01T14:43:00.003-04:00

The chuckleheads at the Institute for Creation Research are once again rearing their pharisaical heads and claiming—not merely that their view of creation is correct, which would be perfectly reasonable for them, as it is for anyone, to argue—but that their view amounts to a test of orthodoxy.

No matter that many church fathers, at a time when there was no reason not to accept a hyperliteral view of Genesis, in fact did not.

No matter that the early church, when constructing its tests of orthodoxy (the historic creeds) saw fit to mention only the who and the what: (God created the universe), and not the when and the how.

I have addressed the ICR and the Family Morris before. For example in this post, concisely entitled Spiritual Arrogance, The Garden of Eden, and How I Learned Not To Worry That A Dead Mouse Could Render Jesus Inconsequential I discuss, among other things, Dr. Morris's unsupportable if not blasphemous claim:

if death preceded sin [the fall], then death is not the penalty for sin, and Christ's death on the cross—accomplished nothing.

The ICR (and AiG) follow this annoying Chicken Little template: If you disagree with us, then unsupportable, sensationalist conclusions which would result, we tell ya, trust us, in the negation of the power of the Son of God.

Now the ICR is judging the orthodoxy of Francis Collins. Lawrence Ford, writing for the ICR and singing its praises and placing it in very good company:

The Bereans were praised for their study, "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Notice what they examined: the Scriptures. That's our real anchor. Not "born again" Francis Collins or the pontifications of BioLogos. It all goes back to the divinely inspired and inerrant Book of God.
Is Dr. Collins skilled to lead the programs of the NIH? Absolutely. Is he qualified to teach the Bible? Not a chance. There are "more legitimate evangelical" Bible teachers who are "genuine authorities" in the Bible.

The implied likening to the Bereans and their laudable object of study (the Bible) looks rather silly when you note that the ICR website is a veritable amazon dot com of extra-biblical sources. (Ninety-Six products here, at last count.) Does the ICR think the Bereans had a cottage industry trafficking in extra-biblical commerce?

Collins's views on science and faith are similar to my own. They are not identical—for example unlike Collins I am convinced of the historicity of Adam and Eve—but similar. And, most importantly (to say the least) we are in absolute agreement on the gospel: we are saved by faith in the finished work of Christ, and faith alone.

This will fall on deaf ICR ears but:

The gospel is a gospel of faith that the blood of Christ atones for your sins and makes you acceptable before a holy God. It is not a gospel of the end times or the beginning times. Those are worthy of discussion, but don't put the cart before the horse.

And you never, ever get to say that views on creation other than your own render the creator of the universe impotent.