Jc_Freak

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Straw ManOr "An Affinity for Effigy"

2012-01-30T04:53:00.003-05:00

What I Mean by Straw Man

The term "Straw man argument" or "Straw man fallacy" is usually understood to be based off of the common training technique of using mock versions of enemies (mock versions which are, in theory, made of straw). This "enemy" is much easier to defeat, since it doesn't really fight back. Examples of such straw men can be seen in this video (skip to 40 seconds):

Well, I guess they are only easier to defeat in theory. Anyway, the rhetorical idea of a straw man argument is that the speaker describes his opponent in a fictitious way, which is referred to as the straw man, and then defeats this straw man, thereby making the listeners believe that he actually defeated his opponent.

So imagine if Robin Hood dressed one of those dummies up as Prince John and put it in the square. Then, he calls the town together at the square. Then he shoots an arrow at the dummy and hits it in the V-8 can. He then claims that Prince John is dead and the town believes him. This is the picture that we are painting when we are talking about a "straw man argument".

The problem of course is that you haven't defeated anything. This is why it is important that in any debate that you choose to participate in, you understand your opponents beliefs as well as your own.

Most Calvinists today are grossly ignorant about what Arminianism teaches. This includes some of their most prominent leaders, though I won't list who here. It seems to me that most Calvinists understand Arminianism as the opposite of Calvinism (which on its own is an untrue statement), and define Arminianism based off of reversing what Calvinists believe, rather than defining it off of what Arminius and other Arminians have taught. This is, of course, conjecture on my part, but it seems consistent with the definitions of Arminianism I have often been given by Calvinists.

Straw Man In Action

One of the most frustrating examples of the straw man argument is a particular list of "the 5 points of Arminianism" that I often find come up. This site is an excellent example of this garbage. It lists the points of Arminianism as follows:

Free-will or Human Ability
Conditional Election
Universal redemption or general atonement
The Holy Spirit can be effectually resisted
Falling from Grace

Even the parts that it names correctly it describes wrong. In either case, I want to know who on earth came up with this list? What is it based on? It clearly isn't based on the Articles of Remonstrance which it contradicts. I also doubt that it is based off of any Arminian scholar.

Especially this term: "Human Ability". Who believes in Human Ability? I don't know anyone who teaches that as a concept. What does that even mean anyway? Especially since Arminians believe in Total Depravity, something that Calvinists seem to constantly ignore.

In fact, the only point up there that I can accept even in name is conditional election. But even here he fails with this erroneous statement: "The faith which God foresaw, and upon which He based His choice, was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation." Not true. We believe salvation is accomplished in Christ, and God's prevening enabling grace is constantly working in man. How in the world is that "leaving it up to man"?

It is my opinion that many of the Calvinists who so misconstrue the basic definition of Arminianism are basing their definitions on Dort, rather than actual Arminians. By this I mean that they take the stances of Dort, and assume Arminianism to be the opposite of them. This is simply untrue seeing how the Remonstrants strongly supported Total Depravity, held to the necessity of grace, believed election was of God, and didn't even take a stand on apostasy.

The End Result

The libel and slander is so pervasive within the A/C conversation that most people have no idea what Arminianism is.

Now, one may argue that words change meaning. After all, a word is primarily defined by how it is used. There is certainly some truth to this. However, when it comes to "isms", they are generally defined historically. Even Calvinists who get it wrong still say that the foundation of what Arminianism is is based on what Arminius himself taught. They just don't bother to find out what Arminius taught.

So we have a large group of Arminians who claim they aren't Arminian, we have people who come to believe in Calvinism because they are convinced of this two-party false dichotomy, and we have an overall break-down of real dialogue between Calvinists and Arminians. On top of this, when it comes to how Christianity is perceived by those outside of it, we have a rather embarrassing presentation of Christians' attitudes towards each other. There is zero good which comes out of misrepresenting the other side of the debate.

This also goes both ways. At SEA, we take great pains not to misrepresent our Calvinist brothers, but there are many who have no such scruples. However, putting Calvinists on the defensive where their walls go up merely makes it that much more difficult to explain anything to them. It doesn't help.

Both of us need to stop it! There is a time and a place for polemics, and there is nothing wrong with making an argument from consistency (as long as it is formally made and not expected to be "understood" by the reader). Let's put the straw men away, and actually listen to each other.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: ProoftextingOr "Say hello to my little friend!"

2012-01-23T05:56:00.006-05:00

There are four different ways to interact with Scripture within a discussion:

Exegesis: Carefully breaking down the meaning of a text through grammar, definitions, and context.
Quoting: Repeating word for word what a particular passage says.
Referencing: Just naming the Book, chapter, and verses to which you are referring.
Inferencing: Integrating Scripture into what you are saying without reference to origin, by summarizing, partial quotation, or other means.

Naturally, we would like to exegete whenever possible. However, anytime in which you quote, reference, or inference Scripture in order to demonstrate the validity of the point which you are arguing, you are in a sense proof-texting.

I feel that all good Protestants need to have a love/hate relationship with Proof-texting. Whenever I quote a portion of Scripture, I have an intrinsic desire to explain how I know it means what I believe it means. However, prudence demands that sometimes I have to just quote or reference the passage. This is especially true if I am making an argument from across all of Scripture. However, whenever I do that, I feel icky.

The problem is that most people do not really understand how language works. Human language is fascinating in its complexity and diversity of expression. Every word has a range of meaning, and figures of speech diversify their meaning even further. However, it appears to me that most people are under the impression that words have intrinsic meaning.

However, they don't. Words are arbitrary symbols which are linked to certain categories of ideas, and these categories are broader for some words than others. Therefore, all words need to be defined by how they are used. This is called context. And the sentence itself isn't sufficient to define a word's context, for the same word can be used in the same sentence multiple ways.

However, whenever we simply quote, reference, or inference a text, we are necessarily separating that text from its context. This means that we are either assuming our listeners know the context (which is rare), or hoping that the meaning is apparent apart from the context (which again is rare). However, we can't avoid it, for if we are going to make generalized points, we have to discuss more than one passage. Therefore, proof-texting is a bit of a necessary evil.

However, most Calvinists, indeed most of my fellow evangelicals, don't seem to see it this way. Most "arguments" consist of rapidly firing a set of bible references or quotes at someone like a machine gun from an old mobster movie. Indeed, it seems to be believed that the sheer volume of biblical passages should be sufficient to convince a person (as if quantity was more important than quality).

This is probably unsurprising considering our culture of sound-bites and flash over substance. Exegesis can be long, technical, and confusing. Things which are long, technical, and confusing generally don't convince people. It is much easier for me to see two lists of Scripture and determine which one is longer than it is to analyze the individual passages in that list. I believe that those who do proof-texting believe they are honoring Scripture, and are attempting to demonstrate how their case is more biblical. But while such lists are useful as tools to enable to do more research after a conversation, within a conversation it is rare for these texts to be treated with the care and dignity that they deserve.

Proof-texting in Action

Machine-Gun Hermeneutic

There is no way I can get through talking about proof-texting without mentioning the MGH. In 2008 I published an article expressing what I call the Machine Gun Hermeneutic or MGH. It is a form of an argument from verbosity. An argument from verbosity (or elephant hurling) is a kind of fallacy where you overload the listener with more information than can be assessed. It is unfortunate, but it is easier for a person to recognize superiority in quantity than it is to recognize superiority in quality and elephant hurling can be fairly effective. The MGH in particular is overloading the listener with a series of Bible verses which the listener cannot practically assess. Calvinist websites and internet debaters do this often.

However, there are some inherit problems with these Calvinist verses. First of all, most of them do not say anything explicitly Calvinistic, such as Romans 8:29-30 or Ephesians chapter 1. However, any verse which says a word which Calvinists really really like to use, like election or predestination, is considered to be a "Calvinist" verse, whether those features are explained or not. This of course ignores the fact that Arminians use those words too.

A second reason is that the KJV was translated by Calvinists, and many subsequent translations are based off of the KJV. Take for instance Acts 13:48 which is usually translated with the word 'ordained' or 'appointed' for 'tasso', even though the word's core meaning is 'to position', or 'to set'. 'Appoint' or 'ordain' unnecessarily limits the scope of interpretation, as well as making it sound more "Calvinisty" (of course, even with using 'appoint' or 'ordain' it doesn't prove Calvinism).

And the final problem, at least the final one that I'm dealing with here, is that there is a certain amount of arrogance to believe that we haven't read these verses before. Take this video, which is a particularly heinous example of MGH (and straw man argumentation, but that's for another time). It consistently claims that verses are being ignored, or rewritten. However, we have read the whole Bible, and I've never read a single portion of it that I felt was out of line with my theology. If I had, I would have changed my theology. The problem isn't that one side ignores or is ignorant of certain verses; it is that we approach the Bible from different interpretive grids. (And ours is right of course ;-))

Scriptural Pot-Shots

There is one more kind of proof-texting that really hurls my elephant. It is where you take a verse which is theologically neutral, and then inference it to sound "more biblical" than the other person. For instance, using Isaiah 1:18 to make it sound like you are using reason, unlike your opponent. Another example is to use Romans 9:20 to gain some kind of moral high ground (which usually entails the speaker confusing themselves with God, but I digress).

If you do this in the midst of a variety of other proof-texts, it makes it sound as if another text is supporting your claim. However, it's not. If a text has nothing to do with to do with conversation, than it has nothing to do with the conversion. It is a form of enslaving the text to your theology, instead of submitting your theology to the text.

The End Result

Here is why this actually bothers me. When you search the Scripture for texts that sorta sound like your point of view so that you can win a debate, you are enslaving Scripture. As someone with a high view of Scripture, this bothers me immensely.

Scripture is supposed to transform our perspective. It is the Rule of Faith: the measuring rod upon which we test our beliefs. It is not a debate tool. Some people are so focused on using the Scripture to transform others that they forget to test themselves against it.

This isn't to say we shouldn't talk about Scripture when we have differences. Absolutely we should! But we should respect one another enough to know that the other side isn't simply ignorant about our favorite passages. They've read them, and clearly understand them differently. Therefore, we should talk about the passages themselves, instead of merely seeing who can quote more of them. We all would be much better off.

For series index, click here.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOODSafety

2012-01-16T07:00:00.001-05:00

Babies have no sense, and I mean no sense, of danger. We have all the standard babyproofing that one would find: plugged the outlets, stowed away the pointy cornered coffee table, wrapped up the cords, stashed pillows away (which are agents of death apparently), and put all the poisonous stuff up high. Fine, I get that. He's still learning.

However, the shear lack of respect for gravity befuddles me. If I am laying on the couch, he wants to climb up on the couch. If I am holding him on the couch, he desperately (and I mean desperately) wants to climb right off. And by climb, and I mean crawl to the edge and fall on his head. Maybe he'll learn if I didn't catch him, but then again he may stop learning all together, and I'm not willing to take the chance.

I always thought that a fear of heights was programmed into us pretty well. Heck, babies don't like to lay on their backs because it makes them feel like their falling. However, to babies there is apparently bad falling (aka lying on your back in a crib) and good falling (aka actually falling). One time, he actually twisted right out of someone's arms while they were holding him... securely. We still haven't figured out how he did that, which is a bit scary by the way.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to this kid learning that falling is bad, before he makes me completely grey before I'm 30.

The Pen

2012-01-09T07:00:00.000-05:00

[Warning: This post is more technical than most of my posts. Casual reader beware

Introduction

Our present day culture is a pluralist culture. Living in a nation which holds as a fundamental law of the land that all philosophies and religions are to be treated with respect and at the very least tolerance (in the real sense of the word), it is little wonder that our society has not only been a magnet for groups holding a variety of different beliefs, but has also been a breeding ground for new ideas. This fact has some benefits and disadvantages, but I belief that it is, in general, a good thing.

However, one such new idea has been treated as a universal belief that all Americans should hold. Pragmatically developped to engender tolerance amoung the masses, instead of just the state, a movement has become widespread that we individually should except all persons' beliefs as being equally valid and true. For the sake of simplity we shall refer to this belief as American pluralism.

It is the intent of this post to propose an argument for dealing with pluralist. As of yet, no one has offered me a counter-argument. I simply refer to this argument as "The Pen".

American Pluralism

Pluralism, generally defined, is any worldview which allows for a variety of different beliefs to be equally valid, such as Hinduism or Existentialism. American Pluralism (referred to as simply Pluralism for the remainder of this post) in particular does not have a worldview to support its ascertions (though an individual proponent of it might). Indeed, grounding their belief with some kind of cosmic backdrop is counter-productive to their objectives. Much like Existentialism (indeed one might consider it to be a popular form of Existentialism), it is a belief that focus

What is their objectives? Essentially to stop philosophical and theological fighting. It is an attempt to make everyone get along. It does this by trying to take away the thing that we're are fighting over: truth. It dismantles truth by focusing on the individual as that which has the ultimate authority to validate. If I believe something is true, then it is true for me.

Therefore, truth is personal, and is seen as an extention of self. Much like Existentialism (indeed one might consider it to be a popular form of Existentialism), it is a belief that focuses on the individual. It is the life, experiences, and perspectives of the individual cognizant which defines reality. General reality is something we give meaning to by experiencing and believing in it. Therefore, any claims that we have on that reality are merely personal constructs which should be treasured, but not enforced upon others.

The Pen

Now, it is important for this argument to work that you envision me speaking to a Pluralist, in person:

"For the sake of argument, I will concede that there exists a reality unto myself. I have thoughts, experiences, and impressions which are my own, and to which not you nor anyone else is privy. Likewise there also exists a reality unto yourself which is equally your own.

"However, there also exists this pen:

"This pen clearly exists within my reality. It is here, I am referring to it, and I therefore know it. However, it also exists within your own reality as well. You can see it, and therefore you also know of it. Therefore, there must exist some kind of shared reality between you and I: some place where this pen exists. If you deny the existance of this common reality, then you must admit that in some sense, this pen does not truly exist. But since it does exist, so does our common reality.

"It is important to recognize that when I am speaking of truth, I am referring to this common reality. When I say that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, I am referring to this common reality. When I say that there is but one God, I am referring to this common reality. When I say that God made the world, I am referring to this common reality. I am not simply referring to my own exclusive reality (though my own reality is of course included).

"As such, you cannot confirm what I am claiming by saying that it is true within my reality, while rejecting it within your own. This is impossible because my claim is upon this common reality of which you share a part. If, however, it does not exist within your own reality, then the claim is nullified. Therefore, because of the manner in which I have made the claim, the only options left to you are either to say that I am wrong, or that I am right.

"Unfortunately, this means that you must act against the fundational principle of your own position: accepting all positions as equally true. If you do so, then your entire belief structure becomes hypocritical. Therefore, you must either ignore my claim, which is a means of rejecting it by the way, or recognize that your pluralist belief is philosophically untenable. QED"

Judging Newt

2012-01-02T05:46:00.002-05:00

As I am writing this, there is a great controversy rising around Newt Gingrich on the issue of judges. I'm scheduling this to publish after Christmas though, so I don't know where the controversy will stand when this goes public.

In either case, Newt is being criticized for saying that he will eliminate court offices which he has deemed to populated with activist judges, and he proposes putting more power in the legislature and away from the courts. Here are his words on the subject from his 21st century contract with America:

The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had dealt with tyrannical and dictatorial British judges. In fact, reforming the judiciary was second only to “no taxation without representation” in the American colonists’ complaints about the British Empire prior to the revolution. A number of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence relate to judges dictatorial and illegal behavior.

Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches. The judiciary began to act on the premise of “judicial supremacy,” where courts not only review laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new law from the bench. The result is that courts have become more politicized, intervening in areas of American life never before imaginable.

Look here to see my friend Chris's look at Newt's contract.

A big part of me agrees with Newt. In fact, the first political post I published on this blog deals with this exact issue. There I discuss a Constitutional amendment for the ability of the executive branch and Congress to overturn a Supreme Court's decision by declaring it outside of federal jurisdiction (something which I feel would also prevent those branches from overturning something for their own power). I still think that this is a good idea BTW.

However, I do share with the Conservatives' apprehension of a president simply getting rid of a judge because he/she disagrees with them on policy. Mind you, I don't think that this is what Newt is proposing (which I will get back to), but I do share that apprehension. Whenever you have a shift in power, you always have to remember the principle of inheritance. Even if you want "your guy" to have this power, you need to remember that "your guy" will not always be in power, and the next guy will inherit that power. Never give "your guy" power that you don't want someone else to inherit.

However, I think there are some built in checks and good reasons for what Newt wants to do. First of all, he has not proposed that as president he would overturn court decisions. He couldn't do that even if he wanted to. Instead, he is claiming that he can eliminate judge positions. According to him, precedent for this was established by Jefferson and Monroe. However, that is a rather old reference, and the political system may have changed since then to disallow the president from doing this. This is beyond my knowledge. Still, if he does remove these judges, their decisions would remain on the books. He wouldn't be able to undo them.

Second, he isn't attempting to centralize power to the president. Instead, he is trying to bring it back to the Congress, which is consistent with the political theories which founded the nation. Now I know that Conservatives have a tendency to treat the founding fathers as a monolithic group when the weren't, but I do agree that the Constitution doesn't really talk about three perfectly equal branches of government, though it does leave room for it.

Third and finally, his contract speaks of a national conversation of how to deal with this. He is not claiming that he has discovered the answer and is going to push it through (other than taking out certain judges positions and courts). Does he have a suggested answer? Yes, I do agree that presently it is too raw to put into practice as is. But then, that is how our system works. Just like no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, no piece of legislation survives first contact with the Congress. It'll get shifted, ironed out, and hopefully improved (hopefully being the key word there).

Newt right now is my guy. He is the one that I am rooting for because his ideas excite me, he has shown historically the creativity to deal with real problems, he has worked with both sides of the aisle without losing his fundamental philosophies, and he will bring the kind of experience, both in terms of leadership and interaction within the Federal government, that his predecessor was sorely lacking. His courage to actually deal with this issue is refreshing, and though I think his plan could use some work, I think his own words have shown that he is willing to negotiate and invite input to build a final plan that would be best for America.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOODBaby Jesus

2011-12-24T07:00:00.000-05:00

Often times when I look at my son, I think, "What will he be like when he grows up? What kind of a man will he be?" I think every parent has that thought.

But the other day, as I was watching him, I thought, "What was Jesus like when He was this age?" Often when it comes to historical figures, especially ones who had a great impact on history, we forget that they were once children. This is especially true of Jesus even though we talk about the baby Jesus once a year.

So here we have this kid who possesses the fullness of the Godhead. Yet according to Christian theology He must have developped like any ordinary child. Well, my child gets stuck under the side table because he could only crawl over one the bars. Of course, he has no history or knowledge that would have aided him in knowing that that was a bad idea, but wouldn't Jesus have?

Personally, I think no. At least I think that right now; I could easily change my mind in a month. However there is more going on in my son right now besides learning. His physical brain and body are developping, and what he can't do one day, he can do the next. There is a necessity for a child to explore and try out his mind and body. Jesus who would have just come into possession of a human body, which was itseld still developping, would also need to try it out. This is especially true if we have the theological commitment to the belief that Jesus was truly human.

What are your thoughts? How do you think Christ's divine nature would affect His childhood days?

Calvinist Santa: The Movie

2011-12-19T05:30:00.001-05:00

Calvinist Santa
by: jc_freak

View here for original script

Calvinist Santa (Satire)

2011-12-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

We enter Santa's workshop. Over by the desk we see two elves talking. One is Legolass, who has been Santa's secratary for the past 200 years, and is moving on to new work. The other is Qeebler, who is taking over the secretary resposibilities. As the scene opens, Legolass is pulling out a large scroll from his desk drawer. Let's listen:

Legolass: So this is Santa's naughty and nice list for this year. You will find that about 75% of your responsibilities will involve referencing this list.

Qeebler: Wow this is heavy. So after this year, where does this go.

Legolass: Over there. (points to a room) That room is full of old lists. And this filing cabinet over here has the future lists.

Qeebler: What do you mean future lists?

Legolass: You know, for the next few years.

Qeebler: How does Santa already have a list?

Legolass: Because Santa is the one who decides who is naughty and who is nice, of course.

Qeebler: Of course, but doesn't "nice" and "naughty" refer to what the kids actually do?

Legolass: Well sure! Santa decides who is going to be naughty and who is going to be nice.

Qeebler: Wait wait wait! Isn't the whole point of the Santa Claus project to encourage all children to be good?

Legolass: Originally yes. However, about a hundred years ago, Santa read this book by A. W. Magenta. Completely changed his outlook. He realized that all kids are inheritly naughty.

Qeebler: Of course! That's why they need to be given incentives to be taught right from wrong.

Legolass: Except Santa realized that it is even worse than that. He realized that no amount of present giving or coal giving will ever teach a child right from wrong. So he individually causes each kid to be either naughty or nice. That is the only way to be sure that any of them are going to be nice at all.

Qeebler: Well, then why doesn't he just make them all nice? Why make some of them naughty?

Legolass: Are you kidding? Then who'll get the coal, man! Think!

Qeebleer: Why does anyone need to get coal?

Legolass: Because coal is a basic symbal of justice! In order to show that he is just, Santa needs to deliver coal to someone. Therefore he has to make some kids naughty, or them getting the coal wouldn't be just.

Qeebler: But how is it just to punish a child for doing what Santa caused him to do? Besides, why is justice even an important concept if he can just make all children be nice? Justice only makes sense as a reaction to naughtiness. It doesn't justify the existance of naughtiness itself.

Legolass: Ok, clearly you haven't read enough A. W. Magenta yourself. Maybe I can recommend a few more contempory books. For instance, maybe Desiring St. Nick by John Flutist, or In the Toymaker's Hands by James Mutherovpirl.

Qeebler: Look, you can't just hide behind a bunch of authors whose names sound like really bad puns. How can you and Santa justify punishing children for doing exactly what they were made to do? That's just hypocritical!

Legolass: Apparently you have this strange idea that kids can be good enough to earn their own presents.

Qeebler: I never said that. First of all, I am aware that you can't earn gifts. That's what makes them gifts. Santa is under no obligation to give anything to anyone. Second of all, I am not complaining about children not really earning theirs gifts under your system. I'm complaining about them not really earning their coal! While there is nothing unjust about giving someone something good without merit, there is something inheritantly evil about giving someone a punishment without merit. There is a big difference between Santa punishing a child by intentionally giving them a lump of coal and Santa simply not givng certain kids a gift because he loves other kids more.

Legolass: Wait a minute! Stop right there! Santa loves all kids! After all, he says so.

Qeebler: How can you say he loves all kids if he treats some differently by means of some arbitrary decision!

Legolass: It's not arbitrary.

Qeebler: Oh, so what does he base his decision on then!

Legolass: His own good pleasure.

Qeebler punches Legolass hard in the shoulder

Legolass: Ow! What was the reason for that?!

Qeebler: My own good pleasure.

Legolass: Qeebler, maybe we rushed you to this position. I'm not sure if you are quite ready for it yet. In fact the cookie department could use a good managerial mind. Perhaps we can move you there.

Qeebler: Hold on, you di...

Legolass: That's enough! Good day Qeebler.

Scene fade out.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: ConsistancyOr "Van Til It Hurts"

2011-12-05T07:17:00.001-05:00

What I Mean By Consistency

In the 1920s a Dutch Theologian by the name of Cornelius Van Til (hence the joke in the subtitle) revitalized an apologetic approach known as presuppositional apologetics. In essence, presuppositional apologetics assesses the validity of a philosophical view by its presuppositions (the underlying assumptions upon which the view is based) and whether these presuppositions contradict each other or are consistant with each other.* It sort of like a monological Socratic argument.

Oh, and Van Til was a Calvinist.

Personally, I have no issue with presuppositional apologetics. Indeed, I think it is a powerful rhetorical technique, and it vastly important in inter-religous studies as well as systematic theology. I even defend it in this post. However there are some precautions one should consider before they completely trust arguments from consistency.

First, there are very few beliefs that are homogenous, that is existing in only one form. For most philosophies, there are variations, and some of these variations are going to be more consistant than others. Therefore, if one is intent on making good and honorable arguments (instead of trying to just destroy whatever you disagree with irregardless of validity), one must study the breadth and depth of the other position.

Second, if you are going to argue from consistency, then you must only consider the other opinion. You cannot allow your own presuppositions and priorities to be involved in the argument. This is really, really, really... really hard to do. Therefore, one must not only study the breadth and depth of the position to be critiqued, but also must completely and exhaustively and critically study the full depth of one's own position so that it may be appropriately set aside.

Third, there needs to be an understanding that if you are making an argument from consistency, you are not criticizing what a person believes; at least not directly. If I say that to be consistent, a Calvinist would have to believe that God is the source and designer of all evil, I cannot then say that God, in Calvinism, is evil. I have to admit, if I care about being honest, that Calvinism doesn't actually teaches this (Thank goodness).

Fourth, we have to consider how much strength we can give to an argument from consistency given the theological category of mystery. Mystery is the simple and humble acknowledgement of God's ineffability: we cannot fully describe Him. Though without having any stipulations as to what properly constitutes a mystery the idea becomes an intellectual cop-out, we do still have to be careful about how much strength we give to consistency arguments when the subject is the ineffable God.

Consistency in Action

Synergism

Here is an example of this:

You may say, how can "everything be of Christ" if faith is from us? I would answer, it is possible to be inconsistent! (we all are to some extent) But it is a happy inconsistency, as long as they truly rest on Christ alone.

The accusation is a common one: if Arminians were consistent, we would note that we are the cause of our own salvation. I would say that this accusation is completely false. Although one could call us synergistic, we do not hold that we in any way cause our salvation. (Of course, this depends on your definition of the 'synergism' so I don't find the appellation helpful in theological discourse. )

Why do we say salvation is all of Christ? Because I do not do any of the saving. The actions of salvation (justification, salvation, election, sanctification, regeneration, etc...) are completely done of God. We have no energetic input into any of these processes. The "part we play," so to speak, is passive: we get out of the way and trust God to do all of the work. That is hardly something causal.

But Calvinists say that is inconsistent. Inconsistent with what? Here is one of the major problems with the way in which Calvinists use the rhetoric. In order to demonstrate inconsistancy, they must point out two or more beliefs that Arminians hold and show them to be incompatible. However, they usually don't really do this. They usually merely state that we are inconsistent.

Personally, I think that they usually don't mean inconsistent (there are counter examples of course). Inconsistent is just a euphemistic way for them to say illogical. However, saying illogical directly gets them in much more trouble because it is a much harsher accusation to make and a much harder accusation to prove (not to mention untrue). Much like the political use of the word 'tolerance' in lieu of 'acceptance', it is a way of saying what they really want to say, while not sounding like they are saying something obviously objectionable.

The truth is Arminianism isn't illogical, nor inconsistent. This is because all logical arguements start with unprovable presuppositions, and even though both Calvinism (at least certain forms of it) and Arminianism (at least certain forms of it) are completely logically, they are still different belief systems. This is because we hold different presuppositions: different starting places. The Calvinist claim that we are inconsistent usually is based on their inability to seperate out their own presuppositions in their analyses.

The End Result

The way that the term consistency is used gives a lot of unscholorly Calvinist arguments a scholarly feel. It makes them (the arguments) sound a lot more impressive than they really are.

Think about it. To say that something is inconsistant is to claim that you have done all of the work that I mentioned in the first part of this post (studying the breadth and depth of Arminianism, exhaustively and critically studying the full depth of Calvinism, and setting aside Calvinistic assumptions). Therefore the Calvinist is rhetorically taking this higher ground that says, "Trust me. I've thought about this."

However, the gross ignorance of of these same Calvinists on what Arminianism teaches coupled with the absolute assumption of certain Calvinist presuppositions means that most have actually not done this work. For many, Arminianism is inconsistant because Piper or Sproul said so, but they don't actually know themselves. The arguments simply make sense to them, so it must be true.

Dealing with this rhetoric though is actually fairly simply. First of all, you can simply give it back (like how they say that making the human will a secondary cause in salvation** puts salvation in the hands of man, but God only being a secondary cause to sin completely absolves Him from it). Second, point out how they are assuming Calvinist presuppotions in their analysis, which is a failure in showing inconsistancy. Finally, by callingg you inconsistant, they have essentially invited you to explain Arminianism. take up that invitation and set the record straight.

_________________________________________________________
*Actually any argument based of an analysis of presuppositions is an example of presuppositional apologetics. Arguments from and for consistency are just the most common and basic form of it.

**I wouldn't actually say that humans are a "secondary cause", since I don't think that we take as causal role. But, Calvinists due argue that human inaction does alter the course of one's eternal destiny, and is thus causal in some way. But even if it is causal, it is, at best, a secondary cause since God does all of the actions.

For series index, click here.

Why Respecting My Religon Is Disrespectful

2011-11-28T07:24:00.001-05:00

There are a lot of words thrown around today in the political arena that simply don't mean what they used to mean; some are more obvious than others. However, the biggest area where this goes on is within the context of religion. Many have talked about how those who preach "tolerance" are often intolerant of those who disagree with them, but that is not the word that I talking about today. I'm talking about respect (insert Aretha Franklin joke here).

First a caveat: I do believe that we should respect other people's beliefs. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but most are. Besides, they are human beings, and they have reasons for what they believe. Often times we just have different starting places (or "bliks" as Roger Olson recently said). If you don't respect that they have a right to their opinions, and that there are reasons behind what they are saying, then you are not going to be able to have a serious conversation about truth with them, evangelisic or otherwise.

However, what many mean by respect isn't respect at all. Many times, I have gotten into conversations with someone, and they talk about what they believe, and I either assess what they said, or offer my own opinion on the subject. And then, they turn to me utter that great conversation stopper, "I respect that opinion."

However, they don't. They don't because they ended the conversation, and left it at that. By "respect that opinion" they mean "I am fine with you believing that but I'm not going to think about." That isn't respect. Respect isn't taking what I said, wrapping it up in a little box with a ribbon that says "respect" on it, and then putting it on a shelf to collect dust. Respect is taking what I said seriously.

I don't believe what I believe because it makes my life simpler, easier, or happier. Indeed, it doesn't always. I believe what I believe because I am convinced that it properly describes reality. If I am right, then that belief is as true for you as it is for me.

It seems to me that this "respect" and "tolerance" movement often allows people who don't really want to get involved with thinking about such things to hide their beliefs from criticism. People have taken personal possession of their beliefs: their own little creations that marks who they are, and shows how creative they are. Like those paintings that I made in high school that I still have for some reason, there is this self-gratifying nostalgia looking back at such creations.

However, also like those paintings from high school, many times they're crap! However, the difference is that I am aware that those paintings were crap, but many of these people expect to receive the same level of respect for such opinions as ancient beliefs that have had thousands of persons carefully meditate and consider the implications of for centuries. While being old or organized doesn't make something true, it certainly makes it more worthy of respect than a really cool idea someone came up with while eating pizza and playing Halo.

Respect needs to be earned, and if your idea really is brilliant (and it may be), then demonstrate it by allowing it to stand up against scrutiny. True respect is not only recognizing that someone has good reasons for believing what they believe, but that they could be right, and that therefore what they are saying is worthy of consideration. This is especially true if what they are saying has serious ramifications for your life (like the future of the country, or the eternal state of your soul). These are things to be taken seriously, and not "respected" like I respect that you like Elvis over the Beatles (which I don't understand, but I digress). It needs to be true respect. It needs to be a recognition that this is something worthy of my time.

Here is my advice to you: don't use respect, tolerance, or other political words to ignore important ideas. Really take the time to think things out, and hear what people say. Show people enough respect to take them, and their ideas, seriously. Then maybe, just maybe, we'll become a society of real dialog that has conversations of substance.

Thankfulness as the Key to Joy

2011-11-24T07:00:00.001-05:00

Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. -Ephesians 5:17-20

In Christian life, thankful is intended to be a way of life. It is not incidental that Paul advices us, no, charges us to be thankful in everything. The key to living a joyful is to choose to be thankful for the life that we have.

It is interesting that we live in such a properous nation, and in such lavish comfort over all, and yet most of us have a lot of trouble being thankful. Here nation is a testament to the truth that getting what we want does not make us happy. What makes us happy is recognizing that we already have more than we deserve.

God is a merciful and caring God, and even the most disadvantaged person in the world has still been given life, a gift that was unearned and was not owed him. My every breath is a gift. Even though it is easy to be frustrated that things are as good as they were, be grateful that you still eat three square meals a day, have a roof over your head, and clean clothes on your back, for there are many who don't have those things who are grateful for what we have.

So this Thanksgiving, give thanks. Know that God is with you and is blessing you. Look at your family and friends and thank God for them.

And one more thing: have fun! God loves a cheerful thanker.

Types of Theological Development

2011-11-21T07:00:00.005-05:00

I realized that I have never written on this, and it kind of surprised me. I personally, and this is completely me, see four modes of theological development. By this I mean that a person's or a group's opinion on a certain theological/philosophical matter doesn't simply develop on its own. There is generally some kind of impetus which causes us to think on things, and that impetus influences how our theology itself develops. Because of this, certain theological ideas are based more out of the mode through which it was birthed. I think it is best to see what I mean.

The Four are:

Apologetic: In this mode, a person's theology develops essentially through combat with other ideas. The person begins with a basic belief system, and then engages in other belief systems. That core belief system is then protected through new theological ideas intended to combat or dodge certain criticisms, or new ideas that are designed to demonstrate that system's superiority over other systems.

Irenic: In this mode, a person's theology develops through optimistic comparisons with another perspective. The person begins with a belief system, and then looks at another belief system to see what they have in common. Those commonalities are then emphasized and are considered to be more important. The differences are either altered, or talked about. New ideas result from seeing an idea in the other belief system that the person likes, and then altering it to fit within their own views. Irenic development is not necessarily postmodern relativistic interfaith kind of thinking (though that can be an example of it). It is can also be anytime when two or more groups are trying to unify (Such as the original Fundamentalist movement).

Scholastic: In this mode, a person's theology develops through careful and systemic analysis and meditation. The person begins with a basic belief system, which is then critiqued, analyzed, expounded upon, etc... Scholastic development often results in systematic theologies, and other such tomes. As far as new ideas are concerned, that is the goal of Scholastic development. It is people trying to come up with new ideas.

Pragmatic: In this mode, a person's theology develops by attempting to use one's theology/philosophy to achieve certain objectives. The person begins with a belief system and a goal. The person then eliminates those aspects of that belief system which impedes their goal and adds ideas which help their goal. To be frank, this is the typical mode of theological development in America today, which isn't surprising given our culture.

In the best cases, a person or group should really be employing all four of these modes. If one's theology were a city, then scholastics are the foundation upon which everything is built, apologetics is the wall which protects the city from invaders, irenics is the infrastructure (roads) which keeps the people united, and pragmatics is the industry which keeps things moving.

When any of these becomes over emphasized, things go bad. Scholastics starts dealing with worthless ivory tower nonsense, apologetics causes strife and fracturing groups, irenics makes your ideas wishy-washy and easily ignored, and pragmatics causes you to lose sight of what really matters. It is when the four are in balance that your ideas develop in a healthy manner.

A Take on the Republican Field

2011-11-14T07:00:00.004-05:00

I thought I would do a quick little post on my thoughts on the Republican field. Because we are talking about the primaries, I am going to use my friend Chris Bastedo's stock metaphor of buy (someone I think might succeed), hold (someone I could succeed), sell (someone who I don't expect to succeed), and sold (someone who I think is a joke). Also, to avoid bias, Chris always lists everyone alphabetically. Therefore, to flaunt my bias, I'm going to start with who I like least and move to who I like best:

Jon Huntsman (Sold)
Huntsman is a RINO and simply is not going to win. His only chance was if the "establishment" portion of the party backed him, and they are backing Romney. I also don't care.
Ron Paul (Sold)
Ron Paul is a libertarian, and a good man. He cares about freedom, which I like, and pushes small government, which I also like. However, he also has very naive views on foreign policy. While this naiveté makes for an adorable Representative, it doesn't inspire confidence for someone aspiring to be Commander and Chief. In short, I like the man, I am glad he is in Congress, and I hope he stays there.
Rick Santorum (Sell)
To be honest, I have trouble with someone who attempts to make everything about values. Santorum is the kind of guy that I would probably vote for in the 90s when we were confident and comfortable. In those conditions, we usually care a lot about values. But right now we have a strife-ridden Middle East and a failing economy. I want someone practical. I just don't see Rick as that guy. (I also question whether value based voting should have a place in federal elections, but I digress)
Michelle Bachmann (Sell)
I think, for this race, Bachmann has had her day in the sun, but it is now past. Overall, I like Bachmann. However, I have found very little of her campaign differentiates her from the other candidates. She has a lot of slogans, and a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric, but I don't see anything that I can't get from someone else in the race.
Rick Perry (Hold)
Perry is a guy with some really good ideas who suffers terribly from foot-in-mouth disease. I also feel like him and Santorum through the most mud around, which isn't really something that gets me behind someone. What I fear the most is if he goes against Barak Obama and says foolish things which cost him the election. Besides, I think we can do better.
Mitt Romney (Hold)
I am sure many of you are surprised that I am saying "hold" for Mitt. Well, to be honest, a large portion of the Conservative base of the Republican Party is trying to find someone other than Romney, and I think there are better choices. Personally, I would be happy with Romney. He does a very good job. I also think he has a fantastic poker face (is he ever not half smiling?). The guy knows his economics, and he understands federalism (which a lot of his nay-sayers apparently don't). But I also think we can do better. He's a Rockefeller Republican instead of a true conservative, and I think a lot of his economic plans are too safe. The radical economic plans of Cain, Gingrich and even Perry are much more exciting and to my liking. In short, I would be happy Romney, but happier with a couple of others.
Herman Cain (Buy)
First of all, I trust his character a lot more than the persons who are criticizing him. I am also exciting about anyone who wants to implement the fair tax (which his 9-9-9 plan is supposed to be an intermediate step towards). I also love his foreign policy, which is essentially appointing other people who know what the heck they are doing and then trusting them. That is what every president without military and diplomatic experience should do. However, I have a couple of concerns: first I little worried that his 9-9-9 plan will be a permanent intermediate step. In other words, I am worried that he'll pass it, and then his term will end before he can implement the next phase towards the fair tax (in government you always have to keep in mind that others with inherit what you do, and may not do with it what you would want). My second concern is a lack of political experience. Solution: Cain is the VP for...
Newt Gingrich (Buy)
I think Newt is the right man for the job. First of all, seeing as we need someone who is going to work well in both the domestic and foreign environments, it is good to have someone named after an amphibian. More seriously though, this is a man who behind the economic boom in the 90s. Additionally, he has extensive experience in federal politics, not only as a Congressman, but also as a leader. He has demonstrated to have a deep understanding of any issue upon which he speaks. He also rhetorically articulate and aggressive, while seeking fairness on the field with his competitors. Apart from a bit of a tarnished past which he has repented of, there isn't anything I can really say which is negative about him.

I want to finish with one last thought: as Americans, we have a responsibility to make informed decisions. If you want to vote, then get informed. If you don't want to bother to get informed, then don't vote. We have the privilege of living in a country where our opinion matters. But like all privileges, it comes with responsibilities. Don't wait until the last minute to read a pamphlet to hand you your opinion in front of the voting booth. Start looking at the people and the issues now. Remember, it's your future too.

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG:Part III: Applying the Answer

2011-11-11T08:00:00.004-05:00

Is has been posited by me in my last post that the reason that homosexuality is wrong is because it betrays our responsibility to represent God, and that it misrepresents the divine nature of love. OK, that's great. But what does that mean for us as Americans, evangelists, and church goers? How do we as Christians take this theological understanding and apply it socially, politically, and practically?

The State of Unions

The first question that I think will be asked in terms of applying our opinion of homosexuality is whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Here we have a real conundrum. As someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, I cannot really be for gay marriage. However, recognizing that my understanding for why it is wrong is completely bound in my understanding of God, I cannot really insist that a government which is not supposed to take sides in religious squabbles should be expected to support my position.

Here it comes to a question of how you understand your own opinion as it comes to government. For instance, if you understand our government simply as a representative democracy, then you may believe that it is the politicians role to represent your opinions, regardless of how the government is supposed to be set up. However, if you take such a position, you cannot really be upset when they also take up the cause of your neighbor with whom you so adamantly disagree. In such an understanding, the politician is ultimately going to represent the majority, and we aren't really the majority on this issue.

Fine. Well if you instead believe that we are a Republic, and those politicians are elected to represent not our opinions but our best interests within in the confines of the Constitution, you would then be closer to my own views. However, can we constitutionally justify the government siding with one religious view over another? There is freedom of religion in this country. I know that that often gets abused, but in this case it is legitimate. Even if we just stick within Christianity, the idea of freedom of religion meant that the government couldn't take the side of Baptists and outlaw infant baptism. That was the kind of thing our forefathers meant. Is it really any different about deciding who our church's are allowed to marry?

I don't really think so. Quite frankly, the government, especially the Federal government should just stay out of it. And it is really this view I think we should support. This is something that needs to be fought in the hearts and minds of the people. This battle needs to take place in books, pulpits, blogs, etc... It shouldn't take place in Washington, or even Albany.

This is why I have always supported the idea of civil unions. I don't mean a separate but equal idea, but removing the language of marriage from the law entirely, and replacing with the structure of the unification of property between two citizens, whether partial or complete. This is the principle reason why government is involved at all, so let's just step out of the religious aspect of the issue, and only deal with property rights. This would free the churches to deal with the issue on the ideological battleground.

Church Life

However, one shouldn't run the church like the government. The government is not a moral institution (it is amoral in nature); the church is though.

We still need to be careful though. We need to make sure that we are not treating them differently than anyone else who has a habitual sin in their life. We need to see them as a person who needs redemption. You don't kick someone out of your church just because they have sin in their life. Naturally, someone who is unrepentant in a sin shouldn't be given a teaching position, or a position of authority, but they can still attend service and bible studies. But if they are trying to teach other people that what they are doing is OK, or if they are causing strife within the church, or if they are flaunting their sin, disciplinary measures are clearly required, up to having them leave the congregation. However, this is true of any sin.

For homosexuality in particular, the church needs to be aware of why a person enters into that lifestyle, and offer alternative answers. I believe that a person enters into homosexuality because identity issues: it helps them find their place and role in society. The church can offer that same sense of identity: you are a child of God, made in His image, and represent Him to the world. You are part of God's family, and are love and accepted for who you were truly are (not necessarily who you think you are though).

However, that is a general answer. To truly answer a person's ultimate identity questions, you need to take seriously who they are individually. This isn't something that I can do in this post simply because the precise answer would be different for each individual. Everyone has a place in God's family, and it is part of the church's role to help a person find it.

One On One

"OK Martin, but how do I deal with homosexuals at my job, in the world, and in my life?" Excellent question!

First of all, watch your language. What I mean is make sure that what you are saying reflects your perspective, not the worlds. The world labels men who are effeminate as gay. Don't do the same. This enforces the kind of stereotype which pushes certain males to define themselves as gay just because they are more sensitive or gentle. Indeed, reject the entire label of a homosexual. There are no homosexuals. That isn't a type of person. Just because the world believes that, doesn't mean that you should. If you speak about the issue differently than everyone else, it will cause curiosity, and give you the opportunity to share the truth.

Second, care about everyone. Don't discount a person because of their political or sociological agenda. Recognize them as children of God, and deserving of the respect of divine image-bearers.

Third, be open with what you believe without being overbearing. You don't have to try and convince a person each time you talk with them (especially not the first time). Instead, simply state truth matter of factly, without judgment or coercion. Allow the truth to speak for itself, and only defend it when it is actually attacked. The best offense is a good defense. Perfect your defense.

And one final point before I close: remember that these are people. You don't know why someone is living a homosexual lifestyle. You don't know their life story. Do not interpret their life unless they give you permission. Do not explain their choices and decisions that they have not told. Instead, focus on God, and declare His glory and love unequivocally. Ask questions and don't give slogans. Remember, it is not our job to convert people. It is our job to teach them to listen for God. Let Him do all the hard work. After all, He's better at it.

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG:Part II: What Is The Answer?

2011-11-09T08:00:00.003-05:00

Biblical Texts

There are three main biblical texts that deal with the issue of homosexuality. Romans chapter 1 describes homosexuality, and clearly represents it as a sinful lifestyle. However, Romans 1 uses homosexuality as an example of the culture's sinfulness, and takes the sinfulness of homosexuality itself as a given.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 lists homosexuality among a list of vices. What we can gather from this text is that A) homosexuality is not sin as a special sin and B) that according to verse 11, homosexuality is repentable and redeemable. The fear and hatred that many feel towards homosexuality is therefore not supportable from Scripture.

Finally, we come to Leviticus 18:22. This verse merely says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." It is a very short verse, and its context is merely a list of other sexual sins. So are we left with no explanation at all?

Abomination

Well, no. Leviticus 18 does give us a clue. It refers to sin as an abomination. What does that term mean? Does it just mean "really, really bad"?

Well, we have to remember that this is a translation. The Hebrew word is 'toebah' (pronounced toe-ai-bah). 'Toebah' is used in two ways: in an ethical sense (essentially meaning something really really bad) or in a ritual sense (it makes you unclean, etc...). In total, it refers to something which God loathes or detests. However, these two senses are not that different since ethical sin is seen as something which itself is ritualistically unclean.

If we set our presuppositions aside, we can consider something which God finds detestable to be wrong, regardless of any other quality it may has. Our hedonistic society would ask what harm it does, but that question is irrelevant if it is something that offends God. It being wrong is not necessarily tied to it being harmful, if it goes against God's design and wishes.

However, even with this, we still don't have much of a reason. Ok, so God finds it disagreeable, but why does He find it disagreeable? It appears that in order to answer this question, we need to speculate beyond what Scripture directly tells us.

Being Made in God's Image

I have spoken here before about us being made in the image of God. I understand the concept to mean that we are representatives of God on earth. This gives us great authority over creation (as delegated by God) and also means that we are holy.

However, being holy also comes with a responsibility. We are God's image-bearers. As such, what we do reflects back on God. Things that go against God's nature are therefore wrong, because we are betraying that fundamental responsibility of our nature. Things, such as violence, coveting, stealing, etc..., go against how God Himself is. In doing these things, we are debasing God Himself.

This is also true when it comes to sex. First of all, sex is a creative act, and God is creator. Furthermore, sex is the creation of human beings, who are holy. Thus the act itself must also be considered holy. This doesn't mean that it must be stoic, or any of that other Victorian nonsense, but it does need to be respected, and understood as a reflection of God's own nature.

When we debase sex, we in fact debase one of God's most precious acts: the creation of humanity. As such, we are debasing God Himself and what He did.

What is important to understand in this, is that sex isn't a game. Is it fun? Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. But that is not its purpose. It is a holy act of creation. In this sense, sexual sin is very much abominable.

What about Homosexual love?

One may say that since God is love, and since sex is the ultimate expression of human love, then shouldn't sex display God's nature as long as the love between the individuals is authentic?

Well, here we have to challenge some of the world's perceptions of things again. Love is not an emotion. Love is not an impulse. Love is prioritization. You love something if you value it more than yourself, or more than most other things. Just because an emotion may be strong, it doesn't make love valid. Love is valid if you are prioritizing things properly.

There are in fact lots of examples of love which are abhorrent to God: The love of money, the love of someone else's possession, the love of other gods… The validity of the love is dependent upon the worthiness of its object or expression, not the intensity of the love itself.

To be honest, there is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same gender. I love my brother for instance. I love my son and my father. Also, in a very similar sense, I love my best friends. However, the expression of that love is camaraderie. It is very different than the kind of love I have for my wife. That love is different because of the holiness of our marriage and the marriage act, with its expression of God's creative passion. Indeed, my love for my son is tied to my creation of him. He comes from me! It is in that creativity that we find out what God's love is really like, and that kind of love can only happen between a man and a woman.

This is not a simple statement that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against nature. I'm saying that it is wrong because it goes against God, and our fundamental purpose of human beings: to express who God is to the rest of creation. How we treat our children, and how we make our children, is intimately connected to that.

On Friday in part III I'll go over how I think the church should be dealing with this issue.

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONGPart I: Why Do We Need An Answer?

2011-11-07T08:00:00.004-05:00

Homosexuality is one of the more controversial topics in America right now, and for good reason. There is an overall question of whether the government has the right to judge the properness of homosexual relations, and whether or not rejection of a homosexual lifestyle is similar to sexism and racism. In a pluralist society, these are extremely reasonable questions.

However, as one who takes the Bible very seriously and one who concludes that the Bible considers homosexual intercourse to be sin, I have to conclude that the homosexual lifestyle itself is something which the Church cannot support. The biggest difficulty is the Bible doesn't give a complete picture as to why, and I have found the Church hasn't really been answering this question well given our current environment. While I find it sufficient to say that it is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, I think it is foolish and arrogant to expect Non-Christians to be satisfied by such a response.

The purpose of this series is to propose an answer to this question, while remaining sensitive to why our culture has begun to accept homosexuality. I'll begin by talking about what I believe homosexuality means in this culture, and why the Church needs to have a thoughtful response for our society on this issue. Then in the next section I'll move on to why I believe the Bible says that it is wrong. Finally, I will conclude with how we as Christians should deal with this issue outside of our church walls. For the remainder of this post though, I will be dealing with why this issue is important to our culture, and why it is right for our society to at least ask the question: why is homosexuality wrong?

Hedonism

Before anyone can properly discuss why a particular thing is wrong, we need to first address why anything is wrong. I would argue that the general ethic in today's culture is a form of Hedonism. Quite simply, Hedonism is the belief that good is ultimately defined by what is pleasurable, and evil or bad is defined by what is painful or hurtful.

Hedonism often gets a bit of a bad reputation since a common description of it is mere self-indulgence. Indeed, this kind of definition allows many who actually believe in Hedonism to distance themselves from the word. However, most sophisticated forms of Hedonism attempt to define ‘good’ in the general sense, where you are not just seeking your own good/pleasure, but discussing how to increase good/pleasure throughout society. Acts which give others pleasure are equally good as acts which give yourself pleasure. Additionally, acts which cause pain in others are equally evil as acts which cause pain in you.

I think that hedonism is a natural standard of morality given a purely material world (a.k.a. materialism). Indeed, I believe this is why it has become so prevalent within our society. Along with secularization comes a pragmatic tendency to allow materialism to be the grand mediator among the various philosophies in our society. Because of this, even if Hedonism is contradictory to one's particular worldview, one tends to appeal to Hedonism when attempting to justify one's position to someone of a different worldview.

The problem with homosexuality is that it is really difficult, if not impossible, to hedonistically justify its rejection. We can talk about the unhealthiness of those who participate it, but it is incredibly difficult to prove, and most certainly hasn’t been proven yet. If we are to reject homosexuality, we need to appeal to non-hedonistic ethics. This is something that I intend to do in Part II of this series.

Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The First Amendment)

As it currently stands in America, the government is responsible for certain functions of life (such as marriage, income taxes and hospital visits) that require definitions of interpersonal relations. In other words, the government needs to know who is related to whom and in what way. Some relationships are biological and are easily defined. But some, such as marriage, adoption, etc..., are not.

Therefore, it is insufficient for the government to just stay out of the way on this issue, which would be nice. Such questions as "Can homosexual couples get married?" or "Can homosexual couples adopt?" need to be answered by the government.
To be honest, this goes beyond the question of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, mostly because it is not the government's responsibility to determine that. But while we as a society attempt to sift through these issues individually, there are a group of people who believe that they are being unnecessarily restricted due to the religious beliefs of others.

This is not something we can simply ignore as Christians. And we cannot simply insist that the government submit to our opinion either. We need to seriously ask ourselves whether or not our views of morality need to be or should be enforced by the American government. Additionally, if we believe that it should be enforced, we therefore need to be able to articulate why homosexuality is wrong in such way that goes beyond Christianity since this government is not allowed to officially prefer one religious perspective over another. I will address this issue in Part III of this series.

Nature Vs. Nurture

One of the problems of this discussion is that homosexuality means something different to the world than it does to those of us who reject the lifestyle. If you go back and review this post, you will notice that I never use the term 'homosexual' as a noun. Quite frankly, I question the true existence of a homosexual as the world thinks of it. I don't think that one is homo or heterosexual. I believe that what we are is human.

However, that is not the way that the world sees it. The world believes that sexual orientation is something that you are born with, and you are denying yourself if you do not give into certain impulses.

There was one movie on the subject that really angered me. It was called In And Out, starring Kevin Kline. Many may say, "Of course you were mad at it. The movie celebrates homosexuality, and you hate homosexuality." Well, first, I don't "hate it". Second, I knew going into the movie that it was going to celebrate homosexuality, and was still willing to watch it, so it doesn't make sense that that is why it would anger me. It angered me because everyone in this man's life judged him to be a certain way despite the fact that it conflicted completely with this man's view of himself, and yet at the end of the movie they were right and he was wrong. Think about the implications of that: it doesn't matter what you feel, or who you want to be; if you fit the stereotype, then this is what you are. I believe we have choices, and we are not bound to some particular lifestyle just because the world forces it upon us.
However, I don't believe that the common conservative/Christian answer that it is a choice is completely fair either. It is clear that many who participate in homosexuality do so against their will, or at least somewhat. Though I don't believe that anyone is actually born a homosexual, I do think that many are pushed into that lifestyle by social pressures, especially some with certain types of personalities. I argue this more extensively here, but the gist of it is for various reasons people begin to believe that there is something different about them, perhaps even wrong. Homosexuality is offered as an explanation of it, and within the homosexual community they find love and acceptance.

If this is true [and given that I am neither a sociologist nor psychologist that is a big if], simply telling them that what they are doing is wrong is insufficient. We need to understand that what they require from us is superior answers to those questions that brought them into that lifestyle to begin with. And no theological explanation or pat slogan (like "love the sinner; hate the sin") can do that. They need to find love and acceptance for who they truly are outside of the homosexual community.

If the Church is to be such a community to do that within, she requires just as a starting place both a serious reflection on the homosexual phenomenon within modern culture and a robust understanding of why God objects to the lifestyle to begin with. The provision of such an understanding is exactly what this series is all about. This is what I hope to lay out in part II.

Christian Memorial Day

2011-11-01T08:00:00.001-04:00

A Blessed All Saints Day to you!

I say blessed, because we in America do not fully understand what it is like to suffer for our faith. This is why All Saints Day is so important for us Americans.

All Saints Day is the Christian Memorial Day, where we remember those who of suffered and died for the cause of Christ. As a nation of comfort and religous freedom, we need to remember that our brothers and sisters across the world do not share our fortune. The gospel costs something. We, who are so afraid to stand up for the name of Christ and the hope that He brings, need to look at those saints who have paid the ultimate price on crosses, stakes, and swords.

This is the day of martyrs, and we have allowed Halloween of all things to let us forget the courage of our siblings in the Lord, and the power that the Spirit of God displays through our weakness.

Here is a story from the Voice of Martyrs website. Let it encourage you to pray for those in other nations, for our fallen myrtyrs:

Somalia: Teenager Beheaded

A 17-year-old Christian was beheaded by al-Shabab extremists on Sept. 25 as he prepared for school. Al-Shabab, determined to rid Somalia of Christianity and Western influence, had carefully monitored Guled Jama Muktar and his family since their arrival from Kenya in 2008, a source told Compass Direct News. “I personally know this family as Christians who used to have secret Bible meetings in their house,” the source said.

The militants arrived at Muktar’s house around 6 a.m. after his parents had left for work.

“The neighbors heard screaming coming from the house, and then it immediately stopped,” the source told Compass Direct News. “After a while, they saw a white car leaving the homestead.” When Muktar’s parents heard about their son’s murder, they rushed home, buried his body and fled the area, fearing the militants would kill them as well. “When the incident happened, the parents called to tell me that their son had been killed and that they feared for their lives,” the source said. “Since then, I have not heard from them.”

After a string of al-Shabab kidnappings in Kenya, Kenyan military forces invaded Somalia on Sunday, Oct. 16, to combat the extremist sect, according to Associated Press reports. Kenya claims that France joined them in an attack on Oct. 23, bombing a town near an al-Shabab stronghold.

The al-Qaida-linked Al-Shabab are masters of suicide bombs, slaughtering Somali civilians, many of them Christians. While fighting the transitional Somali government for control of the country, al-Shabab imposes a strict version of Sharia, or Islamic law, in the area it controls.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Slippery SlopesOr "Are We Inclined to Decline?"

2011-10-17T06:00:00.003-04:00

What I Mean by Slippery Slopes

Before I begin it is important that I differentiate between Slippery Slope Arguments, and Slippery Slope Fallacies.

Slippery Slope Arguments are a form of inductive reasoning which notes that those who hold to a certain position (hitherto referred to as position A) either eventually come to hold a bad belief (hitherto referred to as position B), or their students/descendants come to hold that bad belief (i.e. position B), or it is reasoned that position A should logically lead to position B. It is then induced that there is some quality about position A which usually or necessarily causes a belief in position B. Since position B is bad, it then follows that position A is also bad (or at least too dangerous to be considered).

The Slippery Slope Fallacy actually takes exactly the same form as the Slippery Slope Argument. The only difference is that there lacks sufficient evidence to link position A to position B. Indeed, this is the problem with inductive reasoning in general, for the very nature of induction merely gives strong support for a conclusion, but it cannot demand it. Even the best Slippery Slope Arguments can only say that position A can/probably will/often will lead to position B. It cannot guarantee it. Once someone either starts saying that A guarantees B, or if one doesn't take the time to establish sufficient evidence for A leading to B, the Slippery Slope becomes a fallacy.

We need to be careful when someone makes a Slippery Slope argument because it is significantly easier to propose a Slippery Slope than it is to truly present one. In order to propose one, all you need to do is to show that A is come how closer to B than your own position. However, showing that Pennsylvania is closer to Florida than New York doesn't mean that I'll end up in Miami whenever I drive to Philadelphia. To demonstrate a Slippery Slope you have to actually show that there is a slope: a cause and effect, as well has sufficient history showing a correlation.

Slippery Slopes in Action

Pelagianism

There are many Calvinists who love to project the Arminianism/Calvinism debate back onto the debate between Augustine and Pelagius in the late 4th century. When doing so, Calvinism clearly goes to the Augustinian side since it really is the Protestant version of what Augustine taught on these matters. However, one has to be either grossly ignorant or malevolently deceitful in order to claim that Arminianism is akin to Pelagius's views (Arminianism is in fact very similar to the Semiaugustinian view which arose in the early 5th century).

For those who are neither ignorant nor deceitful but still want to use the Augustine/Pelagius debate as a Calvinist claim to legitimacy, they resort to saying that Arminianism leads to Pelagian views. Usually, this claim is simply stated in such terms as "on its way to Pelagianism" or "it is the first step towards Pelagianism". What I have never heard is any attempt to explain how a belief in Arminianism would actually lead to a belief in Pelagianism, nor have I heard any examples of Arminians who eventually became Pelagians.

I would also add that I have only ever heard this particular argument from the most extreme Calvinists. Indeed, extremists will often use slippery slopes argumentation to justify why they are so extreme. This is why Slippery Slope arguments are usually specific examples of stronghold type rhetoric.

Mind you, Arminianism is closer to Pelagianism than Calvinism is. However, Arminianism is also closer to Calvinism than it is to Pelagianism. Does it make sense that any Semi-pelagian who comes to believe in Arminianism will eventually become a Calvinist? I doubt it. Like I said in the introduction, Showing that a position is between your position and a heresy does not prove that holding it will lead to that heresy. This is what happens when someone tries to understand topography while looking at a 1^st grader's map. Location does not imply inclination.

Arminianism/Semiaugustinianism are indeed middle ground positions, but I have found it to be rare that a middle ground position leads to an extreme. Indeed, what I have usually found is that when one moves from one extreme to another, it is usually by way of a great leap over the middle ground positions. A Calvinist, who believes that they must believe in Calvinism or end up a Pelagain, is far more likely to become a Pelagian due to a sudden disbelief in Calvinism than a typical Arminian.

Liberalism

First, I need to explain what I mean by liberalism. By liberalism I mean theological liberalism, not political liberalism. Theological liberalism states that the Bible was written by humans, and as such it to be understood primarily as their opinions. We then have the right to judge whether or not their opinions are accurate, and do not have to judge our opinions by theirs. This is to be contrasted with conservative Christianity, which understands the Bible to be rule of faith by which we judge whether or not our opinions are on the right track.

Now many Calvinists have argued that Arminianism leads to liberalism. The primary evidence for this is that the Remonstrance church in Holland (which was started by Arminius's original followers) is incredibly liberal. Of course so is Geneva, but somehow that doesn't count...

Here is a video which makes this argument fairly well: "Arminianism: Root of Christian Liberalism?". Now, we can ignore the first part which is a vacuous argument from authority about Arminianism being Semi-pelagian (which consists of putting on happy imagination hats and pretending not only that the Dortians tried really really really hard to properly understand Arminius, but that this, in of itself, somehow makes them automatically right).

Though the conclusion of the argument here is false, what is interesting in this video is that it is an example of a Slippery Slope argument done properly. It gives historical evidence and give a reason as to why Arminianism would lead to liberalism. Now the historical evidence is faulty^* and the reason given is based off of a series of false premises^**, but the argument itself is presented well.

However, this example is more the exception than the rule. Usually, in my experience the argument is based off of many liberals believing in free will. Well, if Arminians believe in free will, and liberals believe in free will, then one leads to the other. However, even though most liberals today believe in free will, that wasn't always the case. And the only reason they do is because of existentialism, not because they used to be Arminian.

The biggest problem with this argument though is that it just doesn't correspond with history. Both Calvinist and Arminian churches went liberal because liberalism has nothing to do with sotierology. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentages were about the same.

The End Result

Slipperly Slope arguments are really a specific form of Stronghold rhetoric, which I have mentioned before. Like all Stronghold rhetoric, Slipperly Slope arguments expose why the arguer holds the stances that they hold.

However, Slipperly Slope arguments are themselves rather dangerous. Slipperly Slope argumentation excludes the middle ground as a serious position. As such, if someone were to lose faith in the "established position" they often leap straight to the bottom of the slope without seriously considering any alternatives.

Perhaps this isn't a fear for Calvinists due to their belief in eternal security, but it is something which bothers me. After all, I have to constantly watch former Calvinists leap right over classic conservative Arminianism straight into the very beliefs that they were trying to avoid. For me, there have just been too many innocents who have worked so hard avoiding a bit of a slope that they've driven right off the cliff.
______________________________________________
* I've already said it a couple of times, but the history mentioned in this video is faulty because Calvinist denominations went just as liberal as Arminian ones. Indeed, I remember reading one Calvinist who said that belief that all which came to pass was by the hand of God is why he believed that he needed to head in the same trajectory of the surrounding culture (a.k.a being liberal).

** The poor premises are:

One does not have to believe that God directly put words into the prophets' mouths in order to believe in the reliability and infallibility of Scripture.

Most evangelicals start with a belief in infallibility and only then start to consider why. There are very few who hold to infallibility as a consequence of their other beliefs

Even if one had to believe that God took over the will of the prophet in order for Scripture to be infallible, most Arminians (including myself) hold that God can and even has overtaken or changed the wills of humans before. We just hold that He generally doesn't, and that He doesn't when it comes to salvation itself.

For series index, click here.

Transitions

2011-09-19T05:11:00.010-04:00

Hey everyone. I've recently moved (my home, not this site) and I am being transferred at my job. So I am undergoing a lot of transitions at the moment. I don't even have internet at my house.

My point is that I probably won't be posting here for about a month. Sure, its happened before, but this time it's planned. So I look forward to writing some more soon. See you then.

My son in our old apartment's
living room.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: The StrongholdOr A Mighty Fortress Is Our Theology

2011-09-05T05:55:00.002-04:00

What I Mean by the Stronghold

This is probably going to be the hardest rhetorical analysis that I currently have planned to explain what I mean. It is important for this post that I mention that this is neither a critique on Calvinist theology, nor is this particular anomaly a universal characteristic of Calvinist rhetoric. Instead, this is something that I have noticed experientially as I have talked to Calvinists.

It seems to me that most Calvinists today have become Calvinist to "protect themselves" from something (whether that is liberalism, or Pelagianism, or fear of apostasy, etc...). Because this is a major motivation for believing in Calvinism, it then becomes a major part of their argumentation. However, to prove that Calvinism is a safeguard for something, you need to also prove that that thing is also a legitimate threat. The process of trying to prove that something is a legitimate threat that one needs this belief to protect them is what I mean by the Stronghold. The idea is that you are turning your theology into a stronghold to protect people from some horrible idea or fate. You may recognize it from door to door salesman, politicians, and various alarmist groups.

Despite the name I have chosen for it, stronghold rhetoric is not necessarily bad or wrong. Like much of what I am going to be discussing throughout this series, what we have here is a rhetorical trend, and I point it out only to help others understand how such arguments are made. Indeed, stronghold rhetoric is essentially a form of emotional rhetoric, and engaging the emotions is an important part of all rhetoric, for it is usually the part of the argument that emboldens us to act. I am more likely to do something because I care about it, rather than simply because it makes sense to me. The emotional rhetoric deals with the "why this matters" side of intellectual discourse, and it also is the guide to understanding a speaker's true motivations when dealing with rhetorical analysis (which is what this project is about).

The Stronghold in Action

The most common form of the Stronghold is the Slippery-Slope argument, but I intend to do a separate post on that. So I have two other examples:

Eternal Security

I don't want to say that the Calvinist view of eternal security is based on fear. I actually don't think that it is. The view is based more on logic: if one is unconditionally and irresistibly chosen for salvation, then it stands to reason that they would remain so. It is also innate to the Calvinist idea of "the elect".

The Stronghold comes in when one argues that not believing in eternal security will lead to a constant uncertainty of whether or not you are saved. Here is an excellent example from James White:

Reduce Jesus to the role of making us "savable," and you no longer have the slightest reason to believe that, once a person is in Christ, he will remain there. But strip man of his pretended autonomy, recognize his utter dependence and God's unparalleled power, and accept the truth of the eternal nature of Christ's saving work (and its inability to fail), and you will find a firm foundation*

Even in their thoroughly Scriptural-based treatment of the subject, Peterson and Williams betrays there emotional connection to the doctrine when they say, "What could the biblical writers have said to make our safety in God's care any clearer?"** (emphasis mine)

To be honest, there is a lot of stronghold rhetoric on both sides of the debate on this particular issue. Many Calvinists argue that if apostasy were possible, then one has to be constantly self-criticize and live in fear (sort of like the idea that since falling is possible I therefore must check every step I make to see if a cliff is in front of me). Many Arminians will counter that if the Calvinist notion of a fruit-filled false faith is possible (which is a necessary corollary to the belief of eternal security), then one can never have true assurance that we are saved to begin with.

In truth, Arminians are not in constant fear of falling away from God, and most Calvinists are pretty sure that they are saved. A person taking an idea to an extreme is not sufficient proof that the idea itself is wrong, and people are not bound to believe what we think the logical conclusions of their worldview should be. Indeed, this becomes the basic problem with most examples of stronghold rhetoric: it often doesn't actually reflect how the other side really lives or behaves. However, it remains evident that many Calvinists are very concerned with the fear of falling away, and find a great deal of emotional confidence in the fact that they are incapable of turning their backs to God.

Works

Though I think it was good to bring up in this post, the eternal security example is not really a typical example of what I mean by stronghold rhetoric. An better example is the Calvinist claim that monergistic grace is necessary in order to believe that salvation is ultimately caused by God. There is a fear that if human beings are given credit for anything, that it is tantamount to Pelagianism (the belief that we earn our salvation). Calvinism therefore is seen as a stronghold for God's role in salvation.

The problem is that Arminians do not believe that we are responsible for our salvation and believe that it is totally of God. In order to compensate for this, a Calvinist must argue that Arminians are being inconsistent, or that Arminians are Pelagian and don't know it, or that Arminianism leads to Pelagianism. Such claims are difficult and often impossible to demonstrate, but necessary to make if the Calvinist is going to maintain that emotional tie to seeing Calvinism as a stronghold against works-based salvation.

The End Result

Quite frankly, stronghold rhetoric is the end result. Stronghold rhetoric is the sign which tells us why a person cares about what they believe. When debating with Calvinists it is important to pick-up what they feel Calvinism is a stronghold against. This way, you can understand the best way to talk about Arminianism.

This also goes the other way. Arminians also use a great deal of stronghold rhetoric. There is the present assurance example that I mentioned under "eternal security" above. Also, whenever we say that Calvinism logically leads to a belief that God is the author of sin, or that Calvinism makes evangelism or prayer illogical, we are engaging in this kind of rhetoric. This isn't bad, if it's correct. But we do need to be cautious that we have tested such theories out before we state them, and be sure that we are not simply being emotional ourselves.
______________________
* James White, Debating Calvinism, (Multnomah Publishers, 2004: Sisters, Oregon),p. 406
** Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian, (), p. 77

For series index, click here.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Euphemism and Dysphemismor "Poisoning the well while sweetening the pot"

2011-08-29T08:00:00.001-04:00

What I Mean By Euphemism and Dysphemism

Both euphemism and dysphemism are replacing words in order to make a point. With euphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound better (often to be less offensive). With dysphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound worse.

A great example of a rhetorical use of euphemism is the titles pro-life and pro-choice. Using the prefix 'pro' makes both of them sound like they are for something, instead of being against something. Additionally, it makes opposing the position sound bad (who wants to be against choice? Or life?). Therefore, naming your position can make your position sound better, while making the other position sound worse.

An example of dysphemism would be my calling unconditional election "arbitrary election". The word arbitrary makes the idea sound a lot worse (though I would argue that it is not inaccurate).
Euphemism and Dysphemism In Action

Probably the most obnoxious example of Calvinist euphemism is the term "Doctrines of Grace" which Calvinists use as a synonym for Calvinism. They do this because the word Calvinism is distasteful to some, and it sounds more like a label which isn't very chic. So they give it a new name to hide that it is a philosophical system, and to try and make it sound like they are only defending grace. It also is an attempt to try and own the word 'grace', as if that is a purely Calvinist concept (despite the fact that the defining doctrine in Calvinism is unconditional election while the defining doctrine of Arminianism is prevenient grace).

There are plenty of other examples: sovereign grace for irresistible grace, sovereignty for determinism, effectual atonement for limited atonement, etc...

There are lots of examples of dysphemism as well. For instance, the calumnious use of Pelagius wherever possible. Even the term Non-Calvinist is a bit of a dysphemism, since it paints Calvinism as the only solid idea (very far from the truth).

The End Result*

The end result is a lot of confusion, misdirection, and sometimes outright lies (though I will clarify the lie point at the end). What you usually have is what is known as poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is essentially creating a bias before any real conversation has taken place. For instance, the term "Doctrines of Grace" implies that other theologies don't really promote grace. While most Calvinists do believe this, by renaming Calvinism, one is now forcing the other side to argue against the "Doctrines of Grace" and making it sound as if the person is arguing against grace itself.

This isn't to say that Calvinists are being dishonest (though it has happened). What I am saying is that Arminians should be aware that when we allow this sort of language to happen, we allowing them to choose the battleground so to speak. We need to break much of this language apart, and not allow one side of the argument to own biblical words like sovereignty, grace, and even predestination. We need to understand how these terms relate to Arminianism itself, and keep hammering that home.

About what I said above about lying. There is nothing inherently deceitful about euphemism or dysphemism. Indeed, with the exception of the rampant dysphemistic use of 'pelagianism' or 'semipelagianism' I cannot think of a single example that is universally deceitful. However, it can be easily abused by those who do lie. There is a great article on SEA about Calvinism on the Sly regarding how many Calvinist pastors like to hide their theology until they gain a base, and then subvert the original leadership. This is not something I want to accuse all Calvinists of doing, or even most Calvinists, but it is interesting that it seems to be principally happening from the Calvinist camp right now. I think it is because the rampant use of euphemism and dysphemism by well meaning Calvinists give such power-mongers tools.

To Calvinists out there, I do ask you to be blantent about your speech. Some euphestic terms are of course very legitamate, but you should never use a term for your own belief which is implying something about the other side's belief. That is when you cross the line from honest discourse, into something else.

For series index, click here.

____________________________________

* This last section I have changed significantly. Please look to the comments to see what was formally written, as well as the reasons for the changes.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic AbstractionsOr “Plato: Imagination Taking Shape”*

2011-08-23T08:00:00.004-04:00

What I Mean by Idealistic Abstractions

To be abstract means to be “thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” To put it more simply (at least for our purposes), something which is abstract is something which is not defined by our 5 senses. For instance, love, peace, faith, grace, sovereignty, etc… As we can see from the examples, abstraction is quite important for Christianity. Indeed, it is quite important for life since most subjects deal with abstractions, including science, politics, and even sports.

By idealistic abstractions, I mean the absolute “purest” sense of a particular idea. In practice, the “purest” sense of an idea ends up be the most extreme sense, where no qualification is allowed. Much of Calvinistic rhetoric, in fact, hinges on the idea that the “purest” sense of a particular attribute of God is a starting place for understanding who God is and what He is doing.

This shouldn’t be that surprising for those of us that know a bit about theological history. Calvin based a lot of his ideas off of Augustine, who in turn was highly and openly influenced by Plato, whose rhetoric was strongly based off of deduction from ideals. Here are some very telling quotes from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, 1997) in regards to Plato:

“These doctrines are all based on a metaphysic… which contrasts the world of sense and everyday experience with a true and higher world of ‘Ideas’ (or better ‘Forms’).” (p. 1299)

“Of perhaps even greater moment for the history of the Christian theology was the fact that the thought of St. Augustine was radically influenced… by Platonic doctrines… Henceforward the Platonic Forms were regularly reinterpreted as the creative thoughts of God.” (p. 1300)

Now I am not saying that Calvinism is some form of Platonism. It’s not. Nor am I arguing that Calvinism is wrong because it was influenced by a pagan Greek philosopher. That would be a genetic fallacy, and somewhat hypocritical since most of Western philosophy has been influenced in part by Plato and Aristotle. Instead, I am merely saying is that Plato is indeed the source of this rhetorical style and is the reason why it is so prevalent in Calvinism especially.

Idealistic Abstractions in Action

It is difficult to not find a Calvinist argument or even belief which is not touched by a reliance on Idealistic Abstraction. It really is a foundation for a great many of their beliefs. For the sake of brevity I have chosen two examples to show what this looks like.

Sovereignty

I’ve chosen to use sovereignty here because it is a major part of Calvinists’ motivations and entire worldview. However, the Calvinist view of sovereignty is a very strong example of idealistic abstraction.

The word ‘sovereignty’ means that one rules over a particular domain. It does not, in of itself, describe how one rules; it just merely describes one as the ruler. Any argument which states that someone is not sovereign unless they rule in a very specific way is neither basing this on the definition of the word, nor on what the Bible says (which simply describes God as king). It is instead an argument based off of that person’s opinion of what perfect sovereignty should be.

This is how the logic works. You start with an assumption (in this case an erroneous one) that any attribute can be reduced down to some pure simple concept. In the case of sovereignty, we reduce the idea of lordship down to the simple idea of control. Sovereigns control things. Therefore, the purest form of sovereignty is absolute and complete control. We then treat this as the basic definition of the word, and then claim that it must be true of God.

This ignores the fact that no earthly sovereign in the history of the world has ever exacted this kind of control over their domain. It ignores the most common duties of a sovereign as part of the definition: creating a peaceful context in which citizens can live, protecting people from threats domestic and abroad, and exacting judgment between citizens and between the citizen and the state. It ignores that the Bible describes God’s interactions with Israel in precisely these terms throughout it. These are nothing more than “earthly particulars” which merely distract us from what sovereignty “should be.”

Aseity

Aseity means self-existence, or having no source or cause for one’s existence. It is one of those theological words that only describe God. God has always existed, and nothing comes before Him. He does not need anything to exist, and would still exist if nothing else did. This is what we mean by aseity.

The Calvinist argument from aseity is probably the most blatantly Platonic (that is deriving from Plato) argument in their arsenal. Plato and his philosophical descendants held to the belief that God was static: He was completely distant, and did not react in any way (including emotionally) to anything else. They argued that this must be true because any movement of God must either be a move from or toward perfection, and, since God is always perfect, no movement is thus possible for God. This, of course, contradicts the biblical narrative, erroneously attributes all attributes of God, such as emotion, to ontology (the study of existence), and doesn’t take into account movements within perfection.

The Calvinist argument from aseity is very similar. Now, I don’t reject God’s aseity (quite the opposite) in much of the same way that I don’t reject that God is perfect. However, I do reject the Platonic logic that Calvinists like to employ when trying to use it against Arminianism, especially since they make some similar mistakes.

Here is an example from Tim Prussic:

this Arminian notion makes God dependent upon creation for his knowledge. This aspect is exceptionally pernicious. One of God’s attributes is knowledge. This theory says (explicitly) that God knows because of us. We determine God’s knowledge. Don’t you see the impressive violence that does to the doctrine of God, his self-sufficiency, and possibly his immutability?

Josh Thibodaux does a pretty good job dismantling this argument at SEA, so I do not believe that it is necessary to do the same here. It is sufficient, for the purposes of this post, to point out how this argument is very similar to the Platonic argument that God has no emotions, especially in making the same mistake of attributing all attributes of God to ontology. Just like Plato arguing that God having an emotion causes a shift in His being, the Calvinist here is arguing that God’s knowledge is somehow ontologically tied to the thing known (as if my essence would increase as I gained knowledge, which might explain child obesity).

Like the Calvinist view of ontology, this is taking an abstract concept and taking it to an extreme. While it is contradictory to general experience that the subject of a piece of knowledge impacts my capacity to know and be, the Calvinist ideal of what aseity should be apparently says that God can only know that which He causes. Personally, I see this as circular reasoning.

The End Result

There are two major effects that I believe this style of rhetoric has. First, it allows the Calvinist to propose very powerful sounding arguments without the need for things such as proof or evidence. After all, they are arguing from the idea, and as long as that idea can be articulated well, they are going to sound convincing.

Second, it gives the Calvinist a great deal of power in debate. I would say that Calvinism doesn’t hold up as well under long careful analysis as Arminianism does. However, in the middle of a debate, it is not the one who makes the better argument who wins, but the one whose argument can be simply articulated. Platonic rhetoric was designed for discussion (hence why he always wrote in dialogue). Therefore it is unsurprising that a theology steeped in it also tends to do well in similar formats.

As Arminians, we expose this rhetoric by demonstrating what these ideas would look like in real life. Most of these arguments fall on their face when confronted with the real world. And if they are saying that we are defining God based off of the world, correct them, and point out that the Bible speaks out of the real world as well. The biblical authors didn’t separate out God from their tangible experiences. Indeed, that is precisely the way that they came to know Him. If that is how the biblical authors sought to understand God, then how can we do otherwise?

For series index, click here.

___________________________
*This is the official slogan of Play-Doh©, from Hasbro. Hasbro does not endorse this post, nor does it encourage the flagrant use of its product’s name to make bad jokes about ancient philosophers, gods of death, former planets, and animated canines.

Calvinist Rhetoric: The Series

2011-08-22T04:40:00.011-04:00

This is the index page of a new series that I am planning on doing. As the series progresses, I'll be adding links here to each installment. What distinguishes this series from most of my other ones is that its length is not planned. I'll include new installments as I come up with them. The first installment will be up tomorrow, and will probably be the most philosophically based one.

This series will be engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics (or in this case polemics) where the underlying assumptions of a position are considered as opposed to looking at evidence or surface level arguments. While I will be talking about some arguments in particular, that will not be my objective. Instead, I will be trying to assess why Calvinists argue what they argue (even when it comes to decent arguments) based off of how Calvinists tend to argue.

My current posts in this series are:

Each post has three sections: What I Mean By _____(where I explain the rhetorical phenomenon I'm talking about), ____ In Action (where I discuss briefly some Calvinist arguments that use the rhetoric), and The End Result (where I talk about my analysis of rhetoric's effectiveness with Arminians, other Calvinists, and those without soteriological commitments). You may also notice that each post has two titles: one which is silly and one which is serious. This is because I enjoy torturing people with my bad sense of humor. Please indulge me.

This series is meant to be neither comprehensive in terms of discussing all aspects of Calvinist rhetoric, nor to be comprehensive in terms of each post applying to every single Calvinist. Instead, this series is indicative of my experience interacting with Calvinists and is meant to be representative of how, in general, Calvinism is being presented.

Harry Potter and the Lingering Controversy

2011-08-09T15:05:00.003-04:00

One of the things that I have often thought to write on is this controversy surrounding the Harry Potter books. I don't really know anyone that really shares my perspective on it so I think it is good to pen it somewhere. For the sake of full disclosure, I'll state the gist of my opinion first which is that the Harry Potter books do not represent real witchcraft on any level, but are quite worldly. While I do not agree with those who put a special ban on these books, I do believe that they should be read with caution and criticism from a Christian perspective.

Witches, Wizards, Warlocks, and Other W-words

The first thing to point out is that real witchcraft is a conglomeration of medieval superstition, pagan ritual, and anything that witches think sound cool. While there is certainly nothing universal about what witches and warlocks believe, in general the basic worldview behind witchcraft is that there are sentient intangible invisible forces which govern the ebb and flow of the natural order of things. Witchcraft religions are mostly a series of rituals to communicate with, barter with, make peace with, or sometimes outright control these forces.

Here is where I take issue with the vast majority of the criticism I hear about Harry Potter. Most complain that it teaches witchcraft: it doesn't. Yet many of these same people of no problem with other works of fantasy. WhileNarnia and Lord of the Rings are indeed legitimate exceptions, since they have no good witches in them and "magic" is understood in relation to an ultimate monotheistic deity, most of them have no problem with The Wizard of Oz or generic fairy tales (like Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty). Now some do have an issue with all these works, and those people I respect. My principle complaint is hypocrisy here. If you are going to complain about the book in particular, you need to have complaints that are unique to that book.

Some Complaints That Are Unique to This Book

I personally rather enjoy the genre of fantasy, as does much of my family. Mostly I find the idea of alternate fictional realities to be fun, whether we are dealing with fantasy, science fiction, or comic books. Placing the human being in a completely different kind of context often makes fascinating studies in human nature. (And it's fun watching people turn into newts, and Jedis slicing through stuff with light-sabers)

So when the first Harry Potter book came out, my family was one of the first families to grab onto it. Most of my family, including me, had read the book before it started showing up in the general media. In fact, I had read the book twice before I started to hear Christian leaders telling people that they shouldn't. At the time, I laughed at it because their criticisms weren't based on anything that was true with the book.

As I got older, and especially as Harry got older, I started to notice some things that did bother me, as a Christian, in the books.

First, there is the general theme of rebellion throughout the books. I think that some people are too strict with rules, and when I first read the book, I read that attitude into them. However, I started to notice a general pattern that Harry not only often broke the rules, he seemed to have little regard for them at all. Indeed, they were often in his way of achieving his objectives.

Harry's role models didn't really help much either. In general, when breaking the rules resulted in something poor or wrong, he was generally punished by someone other than his role models. And when his role models did get involved, it was usually after he accomplished something quite good, and was thus only rewarded. This seemed to be justified by the idea of teaching Harry independence and bravery. However, it is also true that he rarely taught how to work within the system to accomplish his goals.

Second, there is certainly a general worldliness to the books. You can tell, especially in the latter books, that while this isn't true witchcraft, it most certainly isn't Christian. I don't think that we should only read things that are Christian, but considering that this is supposed to be children's literature, parents should be aware of what is in the books that their children are reading.

And this brings me to my third a last criticism (at least for this post). The books aren't really children's literature: it is teen literature. J. K. Rowlings supposedly set up the books so that it was targeting the age group that Harry was within that book. So in the first book he is 11, but in the last book he is 17.

That isn't really practical in real life. When a child finishes one book, they are going to want to read the next. And you can't say that we can just make them wait a year, because that is now turning it into a ritual, and I don't really feel comfortable doing something like that with these books. So I would never recommend the 1st book to someone who I don't think is ready to read the 7th.

Recommendations

So where does this leave me? Well, I think this is a matter of what an individual can handle. There are some that probably shouldn't read the books because they can't handle the themes that I mentioned. However, I think for most mature adults and even most teenagers, the books are fine, as long as they are read critically.

If you have a personal conviction against reading any fantasy or anything with magic, then don't read it. If you have a child who is too young to be able to read a book and be critical of that books message, then don't have them read it. If you are bothered by a story where the protagonist in constantly encouraged to break the rules, then don't read it. If you have a conviction not to read anything with worldly or secular themes, then don't read it. Otherwise: enjoy.

Non-Calvinists

2011-07-31T05:22:00.002-04:00

For those who frequent my site (both of you), I am sure that you noticed that I disagree with Calvinism. Indeed I have a lot of negative things to say about Calvinism, mostly because I find much of the recent push for it to be bad for the Church in general (otherwise it would just be one of those things I disagree with but don't say much about, like Open-theism, Mormonism or Nicolas Cage). I am not alone with my opinion on this.

However, I do want to make the point that I am not a Non-Calvinist. Well, to some degree I am, in the sense that I am indeed not a Calvinist, but I don't define my soteriology based off of my opinion of Calvinism.

I am an Arminian, and very proud to be one. Jacob Arminius himself was a great theologian, and a great man of God, and while I don't agree with him on everything, I do agree with his commitment to biblical theology, orthopraxy, and concern for the character of God. I am not an Arminian because I am not Calvinist. Instead, I am not Calvinist because I am already Arminian.

Some may say that they don't like to be extreme. Believe me, I understand that. I always shy away from extremes. But considering that Arminianism isn't extreme at all, and represents a very balanced approach to divine soveriegnty, human autonomy, and general soteriology, it is surprising that this would be an objection.

Some may say that they don't like theology, they are fine with "Jesus is the Son of God, and He saved me." What they fail to understand though is that that is theology. It is like 1+1=2 is math just as much as calculus is. There is nothing wrong with having a thought-out robust theological understanding. Indeed, it is invaluable for being asked a lot of questions, and needing to aply our worldview to new situations. Systematic theology allows us to be flexible in our practice, because we know what we believe, and why we believe it.

Those of you are are simply Non-Calvinist, I would encourage you to really look into Arminianism, especially Arminianism as it is defined by Arminians. You do not have to choose between Calvinism and not having a thought-out systematic view of salvation. There is a stance you can take.

What Is The Difference Between England, Britain, and the United Kingdom?

2011-07-28T01:36:00.005-04:00

I found this video recently, and it answered a question that I've had for a while. I also found it funny. Please enjoy:

Boasting

2011-07-24T04:23:00.003-04:00

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Many Calvinists have attempted to argue that Arminianism falls short of this passage by making faith something to boast about. I believe this argument is based off at least one of four problems:

The Calvinist not understanding the Arminian position of prevenient grace
The application of Calvinist presuppositions that Arminians don't hold
A complete misunderstanding of the nature of faith.
A complete misunderstanding of the nature of boasting.

In this post, I will be dealing with each of these mistakes in turn.

Misunderstanding Arminianism

One of the ways that Calvinists have expressed the reasons why Arminians should be "able to boast" is because "faith is something that originates inside of man, and thus the thing that saves you comes from you."

There are a couple of different problems with this, but the issue that I wish to point out here is that Arminians do not hold that faith is something that originates within you. Faith is made possible by the prevenient grace of God.

Prevenient grace simply means grace which comes before. In this case, it is the sum total of all those acts of grace which God bestows upon us before salvation which prepares us for salvation. All Arminians believe that prevenient grace is necessary in order for us to be saved. Indeed, it is necessary in order for us to have faith.

Now some Calvinists may argue that the notion of prevenient grace doesn't solve the problem. This seems to be based off of the idea that if man is not 100% passive, than man is 100% responsible for the result, even if God does all the actual work. I have read multiple reasons why Calvinists think this (none of which I find convincing obviously), but I don't have space to go into each one now. What is important for the purposes of this article is that Arminians believe that God is the source of our faith.

It is important for the Calvinist to realize that no one would ever boast off of something that they "should" logically conclude. Instead, if they are going to boast, they are going to boast based off of what they actually believe, and we don't believe that faith originates within us.

Calvinist Presuppositions

One of the common mistakes of Calvinist Apologetics is claiming that Arminianism is internally inconsistent. The term "Internally Inconsistent" means that there are 2 or more beliefs which exist within a system of thought that are contradictory ideas. However, what most Calvinists seem to mean by this term is that certain Arminian conclusions do not naturally follow from Calvinist presuppositions.

There is an excellent example of this within this particular subject. Many Calvinist would argue that because the difference between one saved and one who is not saved is faith, that therefore faith is something to boast about. However, this assumes the idea that any condition within man that God uses is therefore meritous (which it isn't), and it assumes that if God does not directly cause something than it is purely man's accomplishment (which is silly). Both of these ideas derive from the idea of unconditional election, and is therefore a circular argument.

These are Calvinist presuppositions that Arminians do not hold, and because we do not hold them, we are not being inconsistent. We just simply disagree with Calvinists.

The Nature of Faith

Probably the silliest aspect of Calvinists claiming that Arminians "can boast" is that it is impossible to boast about real faith. You can't do it. To boast about faith is like boasting about humility: you negate it by boasting. Just try and think about what that would really sound like:

"I have more faith in my complete depravity and absolute necessity in my great, powerful merciful savior to atone for the sum of my sinful and worthless deeds than you do. You loser!"

I cannot imagine how someone who understands how necessarily humbling true biblical faith is can possibly claim it is something someone can boast about. And as silly as it sounds just by calmly thinking about what it must mean, it amazes me that people are convinced by this. Indeed, it saddens me that this is one of the most popular and successful Calvinist arguments. It shows me that we Arminians have done a poor job articulating our theology.

The Nature of Boasting

So far I have talked about how it false to argue that Arminianism can lead to boasting. Now I am going to change gears a bit and explain why Calvinism doesn't protect one from it.

First of all, let's deal with a misunderstanding of the Biblical text. Here it is again for those who may want to reference it:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Many Calvinists believe that the point of this text is that grace is supposed to take away the ability for humans to boast (as opposed to taking away all reason for boasting). At least, this is how the argument seems to me.

However, history and common experience tells us that humans do not only boast about accomplishment. Indeed, we will boast about any status to makes us superior to someone else, whether that be accomplishments, race, class, etc... Therefore, because being saved is superior to not being saved, it is possible for someone to boast about it, regardless of how one is saved.

I don't see why it is impossible to say, "I'm elected and you're not. So I'm better than you." Well, in some degree you are! I mean God chose you didn't He? Even if His selection was arbitrary, God still chose you. That's pretty sweet, and means that you are in a better position than those who aren't.

"Wait a second," says the Calvinist, "even if someone were to boast about being unconditionally elected, that boasting would be completely unjustified." Well the same goes for having been saved by faith. If the text means that the person has no legitimate reason to boast, than the Calvinist has no basis to use it against Arminians, as I have already shown.

And ultimately, that's my point. Salvation is by faith, which the text clearly says, and it is because of the nature of faith that one cannot boast. Indeed, that fact that it is by faith is what makes it a grace, because God has the right to make us earn it if He wanted to. But we don't have to earn it; we just have to believe. The only boasting salvation encourages me to make is to boast in the glory and graciousness of my God and His Son, and it is vanity to argue otherwise.

Does A Yeast Flake Prove Darwinism?

2011-07-08T08:48:00.001-04:00

A little over a week ago, my friend Chris sent me an article talking about how a grad student, by the name of William Ratcliff from the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, has gotten single cell organisms, namely brewer's yeast, to exhibit multi-cellular characteristics. Chris sent me this article because an atheist aquaintance of his claimed that this event proved Darwinism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, like many Darwinists, he has failed to appreciate the length of that shadow.

[Two caveats: First, I am not a scientist. I am a theologian. I am not trying to claim that I fully understand each and every reference about evolution that comes to me. My intent is to properly explain what Creationism believes about evolution, and to show that the differences between it and Darwinism are philosophical and not scientific.

Second, the article in question does not suggest that this proves Darwinism; I seriously doubt that was the intention of Mr. Ratcliff as well. Therefore what follows is not a criticism of the article or the experiment. Indeed, i do not feel qualified to critize either. Instead, it is a response to those that believe that this is a blow to Creationism, which it is not]

Missing Data

First of all, there is not enough data in this article to claim that evolution has really occured. There is no real dissicussion of the genetics: no mention of mutations. All that is recorded are differences of behavior, and biological lifeforms can change their behavior based off of their environment.

Second, there are no links to original sources (and I also could not find any in my research). I even attempted to find some but to no avail (the link to William Ratcliffe was also inaccurate). Therefore, there is very little I can do to verify or elucidate what went on here.

Why It Doesn't Matter

However, there really is not that much of a threat here to Creationism anyway. The problem with most Darwinists' criticisms of Creationism is that they think that we outright reject evolution. We don't. Evolution is nothing more the a discription of the process of biological adaptation. Consider this: all Creationists believe that the whole of the human race finds its origin in one man and one woman. Clearly we believe that biological lifeforms progenicly adapt to their environment. Therefore examples of speciation, adaptation, and genetic mutation do not, in of themselves, refute Creationism.

Now it is true that there are certain, shall we say, gaps in the evidence for Darwinism (including but not restricted to: the shift from procaryotic cells to eucaryotic cells, the introduction of sexual reproduction, the disentropic development of a global biosphere, the irreducible complexity of proteinic systems, and, of course, the advent of multicellularity), and it is true that Creationists do much to rhetorical exploit these gaps. But it would be ignorant to therefore think that the Creationist position is merely comprised of filling these gaps with God.

To be fair, many Creationists are responsible for this misunderstanding, using the term 'Evolution' to refer to Darwinism. Some use 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' to distinguish between the two positions, which is better, but I prefer to spearhead straight to the heart and declare things as they are. We are dealing with 2 philosophies: Darwinism and Creationism. The reason why the difference is philosophical is that the difference between the two is not falsifiable.
Darwinism, generally, believes that evolution is progressive. I say "generally" because Darwinists will admit that evolution sometimes results in something "weaker" (such as albino lizards living in caves). However, the process as a whole is seen as progressive.

Creationism on the other hand considers the evolutionary process to be a form of specialization. In a special creative act, God formed a small but diverse population of lifeforms and from these lifeforms comes all of the creatures on the earth today. The original creatures possessed the potential for all of the forms that we currently have, but it was the various environments which their ancestors found themselves in that shaped the precise forms of modern day life.

The problem is that you cannot prove or disprove either of these ideas... yet. Any example of evolution can be interpreted through either lens. Unsurprising, the exmple at hand, the development of multicellular characteristics within a population of yeast cells, can easily be interpreted as a innate aspect of yeast to be able to exist on both a single cellular and multicellular level.

On To Particulars

Considering that what this needs to disprove is that yeast never had the capacity to exist in a multicellular way before, I offer the following explanations why it fails:

Yeast are communial. Yeast already are single-cell organisms that interact with each other. Confining their environment to intensify this feature is not the same thing as generating multicellarity.

All that is really discussed here is behavior. A change of behavior is not the same thing as evolution. Without a layout or discussion of the changes of genetic material, I cannot ascertain whether or not evolution has really occurred here at all.

Yeast are fungi. Many fungi are multicellular, some are monocellular, and many fungi act in a somewhat middle ground manner between the two using hydrae. It is not surprising then that scientists would believe that the gap between single-celled organisms and multicelled organism could be crossed through the fungi kingdom. However, fungi also possess other unique properties that separate them from animals, plants and other lifeforms, and there is no way of indicating that this isn't just inherit to the design of fungi.

The article itself actually says that yeast used to be multicellular. While I do not know what the source of this comment is, and whether or not I would agree with it, activating a quality that already exists within the species is essentially the Creationist position, and this is all that this project seems to have demonstrated.

In short, the article and the experiment fail to prove Darwinism over Creationism. This is because the difference between the two is not a matter of experimentation, but interpretation of the evidence. If atheists are going to really criticism the Creationist position, they have to begin to try and understand it.

Dawkins's Double Standard

2011-06-21T08:57:00.002-04:00

I remember this one debate I watched with Richard Dawkins in it, and there is one comment he makes that has always irked me. Not in terms that I found it challenging, but it could easily be answered and wasn't. (For those of you who don't know, Dawkins in currently the leading atheist populariser. His popular works include The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.)

Dawkins believes that religion is fundamentally evil, and seems to think that atheism can rid the world of atrocities, or at least come close to it. He loves to reference examples where people have used religion as an excuse for genocide, murder, war, and all sorts of naughty things.

However, whenever someone points out that the USSR was passionately atheist, and that there were many atrocities which occurred within that country, Dawkins cries foul. Let's see if I remember what he says correctly... "There is a difference between an atheist doing evil, and someone doing evil who happens to be atheist."

Uh huh. Here's a few things I would like to say to Dawkins: First you seem to think that there was no cultural/political context to things like the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. Are you so ignorant as to think that such an argument doesn't work against the very examples you bring up?

Second, the USSR didn't just happen to be atheist. They were Marxist, and atheistic materialism formed the foundation for Marx's theories. Marxism was an application of atheism (not a necessary one, I grant you, but it is still the foundation of it). The USSR even persecuted some purely on the grounds of not being atheist (see example here). Exactly how is that different from the Spanish Inquisition?

To this, Dawkins also said something along the lines of "I see no natural path from an atheistic perspective to any evil. No one will ever blow themselves up in the name of atheism"

Well, OK Rich. I will grant you that no one would ever do that. Additionally, no one ever blew themselves up in the name of Islam either. They did it in the name of Allah. Muslims don't worship Islam, and Christians don't worship Christianity. No religious zealot ever did something in the name of their religion. They do it in the name of their God.

Atheists worship science and human progress, and though there aren't any atrocities someone would commit in the name of atheism, there are lots and lots of atrocities that someone could use atheism to justify in the name of science and human progress. Here's a short list: human guinea pigs, euthanasia (not just of elderly, but also the disabled), eugenics, genocide, and quite frankly war. After all, in atheism human life has no intrinsic value. How hard is it really to justify atrocities with that simple idea?

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOOD:I am not my father

2011-06-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

This is my very first Father's day as a father, and I cannot help but feel distant from the title. Marty is now only 2 months old, so it is not like it I should be more used to it. However, when I think of myself as a father, I think of my own father, and how different we are.

Probably the strangest thought that I have had so far was thinking that I wasn't big enough. Yesterday I got up out of bed and heard Marty in the next room crying and I thought, "I'm his father. Wait, I can't be his father. I'm not tall enough" I would like to reiterate that I had just gotten out of bed. I immediately saw the foolishness in the thought and had a good chuckle at myself.

But I found that the root of it was memories of looking up at my Dad. I mean literally looking up at him. I think there is still this part of me that hasn't come to terms with being an adult yet. This whole father thing is really challenging that part of myself, something that I thought I had already put to bed years ago (Get it? Putting my inner child to bed? Eh... never mind). I have always been told that having a child matures you very quickly, and I think I am just beginning to see why.

A Couple of Interesting Links

2011-06-18T22:32:00.003-04:00

This is a very interesting Creationist look at genetics from behtyada: Postdiluvian Genetic Variations. I am not knowledgeable enough about genetics to be able to confirm or deny this, but it is interesting none the less.

Also, I had a bit of a debate with a Calvinist recently. Here are the various posts:

Initial post

My first response

His reply

My final response:

It will be interesting to see if he says anything else, but like I said in my final response, I am not going to say more than I have, except maybe here.

Should Faith Be A Factor in Politics

2011-06-18T00:15:00.006-04:00

My friend Chris recently wrote this post on this subject, and I believe he expressed himself very well. I also completely agree with him. My faith forms the very basics of my ethics and morality. I can I ignore such things like my morality when voting for persons who are going to influence not only my life, but every person around me?

My last post was dealing with my view of war and killing, and how it differed between the Church and the government. Many people saw this as a contradiction, and one person noticed a similarity with Martin Luther's theology of Two Kingdoms.

However, I don't think that my view is really that official. The Church is an ideological institution. It's design and purpose is to house, educate, and equip God's people as they represent Him in the world and spread His Kingdom and influence through the love of Christ. The government is a pragmatic institution. It's design is to protect people from threats foreign and abroad, and to develop an social infrastructure (i.e. common currency, roads, etc) to enable society to function. Violence is never a good thing, but it is sometimes very practical and necessary.

As a Christian, when I vote and consider public policy, I am weighing out two things: morality and practicality. I don't expect the government to be able to defend people without being violent (even though appeasement strategies worked so well in the 1930s). I also don't expect there to be a law against every sin in the Book (laws are meaningless if they can't be enforced, and immoral if they can't be enforced morally).

These are things that have to remain in tension, not because it is some grand mystery on how they work, but because how that tension plays out may vary from situation to situation.

The Bible And The Government

2011-06-05T04:52:00.006-04:00

I recently read a post over at Mason's blog that talked about the Myth of Redemptive Violence. Mason is a strong pacifist, and I have a lot of respect for him (that's why I read his blog). However, this is an issue that I have often disagreed with him about, and I just want to explain my thoughts in more detail.

First off, I think that violence is alien to the Christian perspective. Christianity is by nature pacifist. Jesus taught about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and forgiving those that do you wrong.

Second of all, violence is very common in the Old Testament. The only OT book I can think of which is devoid of violence is problably Song of Songs (maybe Job since the only violence is done by looters).

At first glance, this appears to be a contradiction. Personally, I think this is a dialectic.

Barth Having Both

Barth was a early 20th century theologian, and one of the theological greats of our time. Oh, and he loved dialectics, and often pushed them. A dialectic is a kind of theological mystery: something which is clearly true, but impossible to explain in words. Specifically, it is when to opposite things are equally true in such a way that you can't simply explain how the work together. Instead, you need to affirm both and let them live in tension.

In the case of violence: violence is bad. It is unilaterally bad. It is also sometimes necessary. Perhaps I simply read too many comic books, but sometimes someone just needs to be stopped. Nonviolence is great when you are the one in the crosshairs, but when it is someone else, I don't see how it is justifable to not do whatever you can to protect that person.

However, that doesn't mean that it justifies you. Maybe in human courts, but if you strike any person down, even for a righteous cause, you have defiled yourself. I agree with Mason that the idea of redemptive violence is a myth. David's hands were so defiled that he wasn't allowed to build God's temple. However, just because something defiles you, it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done. After all, the priests were often defiled while performing sacred acts. How much more would one be defiled after striking down on made in the image of God?

Ok, On To Government

One thing I definately believe though is that the Church should be pacifist, and the government should not be. It is the government's principle job to protect its citizens. That is why it exists. It is the Church's job to represent Christ: self-sacrifice.

I believe in the seperation of Church and State, because the Church should be holy, and cannot be defiled in the necessary tasks of governing a fallen world. One of the reasons why the Catholic Church became so corrupted was because it became a political entity. One of the reasons why the NT is so pacifist is because it never deals with state polity. One of the reason why the OT is so violent is because it deals extensively with state polity.

Both must coexist, and remain in tension. As long as humanity remains unsubmitted to God as the one true king, violence is going to remain being an ugly reality. It is one we should never approve of, but it is one that we also cannot avoid.

Imago Dei

2011-05-29T05:58:00.008-04:00

The concept of being created in the image of God is at the center point of many Christian anthropological positions (anthropology is the study of humanity: what makes humans human). My pastor often says that you should never create a doctrine around a single verse. This is an excellent rule of thumb, and I highly recommend it, but ironically when we are talking about being made in the image of God, we have to deal with the fact that this term is actually only used in one passage of all of Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30 (though referenced elsewhere). However, this is a rather important verse. It is specifically the creation of man, and as such gives us what I think is a legitimate exception to the general rule.

So what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Well there are several things that it doesn't mean. We aren't ethereal. We aren't a Trinity of persons. We aren't omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, and any other omni for that matter. Indeed, there are a lot of ways in which we actually look nothing like God. So how can it be said that we are made in God's image?

Going to Context

Well, if we are going to look at this question biblically, we need to remember the 3 Cs of hermeneutics: context, context, and context. So let's look at the context:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. -Genesis 1:26-30

It is interesting to note that it doesn't go on to describe any divine attributes. However, what it does do is connect the notion of humanity's creation to humanity's authority over the rest of creation. Indeed, I would argue that this is what the concept of being in the image of God means: we have authority over creation.

Authority vs. Sovereignty

"Hold up! How can we have authority over creation, while God is still sovereign?"

To put it simply, having authority is not the same thing as being in charge. When I was a kid, my sister Calin and I had authority over our younger siblings (Calin exercised that authority to a greater extent than I did, but I digress). However, none of us ever confused Calin and me with Mom and Dad. We all knew who really was in charge.

Indeed, it is this kind of fundamental confusion that has lead me to never take Calvinist claims of having "a more sovereign God" seriously. Being more despotic, doesn't make someone more sovereign. It usually just makes them more of a jerk.

In the case of humans and God, the relationship between the two is essentially that of delegation. God delegates a certain amount of authority over to humanity for us to rule over creation. However, what authority we have is only based on our submission to the source of that authority: the Divine King.

The Race of Representatives

Understanding that our authority comes from God's sovereignty, as opposed to being... well, opposed to it, becomes easier when we understand our authority in terms of imago dei. The Hebrew word for 'image' is 'tselem', which is often used to refer to idols.

Now, I am not saying that humans are idols of God, or anything like that. It is very clear in Scripture that we are not to worship each other, but it is important to understand how the word connects to idol worship.In idol worship, one doesn't believe that the idol is truly their god. Instead they believe that the represents their god, or stands in for their god so that they can interact with him/her in a more tangible way. Thus we can consider 'tselem' to mean representation, or representative.

A story from I Samuel works to illustrate this. In this story, the Philistines have captured the Ark of the Covenant, and God has sent plagues of tumors and mice to punish them. Then, in chapter 6, they inquire of their priests what they should do. The answer is to make images (or tselemim) of the mice and the tumors out of gold as an appeasement to God. Note how the images here are not things to be worshiped, but things to represent the tumors and the mice.

Likewise, we can consider ourselves, as human beings, to be things which represent God in creation. We are His delegates, His representatives, and the only power we have is by representing God Himself. Our power is not of our own, but it is an extension of His.

Going to the Story

Now the Bible tells a story. Theologically, we call this the metanarrative, or the overarching story from which our theology is based. When we imagine the image of God in this manner, we find that it influences the way in which we view God's interaction with humanity through history.

At first God sets up humanity to be His representatives among creation. However, humanity rebels and becomes separate from God, deterring humanity's ability to accurately represent Him.

So God sets up for Himself a particular people within humanity to represent Him among humanity. He chooses a single man by the name of Abraham, and sets apart his descendants as the Chosen People, or the Elect. They come to be known as the Israelites. However, at Mount Sinai the Israelites reject God out of fear, and wish to remain separate from Him.

So God sets up for Himself a particular tribe within Israel to represent Him among the Elect. This is the tribe of Levi, and they become the priests of Israel. Indeed, a priest is best understood as someone who represents God to the people, and represents the people to God. If you remember, it was God's original intention for Israel to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6). However, because the Israelites rejected this, only the Levites are priests.

Even so, God still continues to show His desire to rule people through a divine representative by establishing the High Priest, to represent Him to the Levites. Therefore, within the OT, you have:

High Priest
/ \
Levites
/ \
Israel
/ \
Humanity
/ \
Creation

Now let's think of the New Testament. In the New Testament, we, the gentiles, are grafted into the vine of Israel, and thus become God's elect as well. However, because of the priesthood of all believers, we manifest God's original design for Israel to be a priesthood to all nations. Thus the Levites and Israel collapse together in the NT picture as the Church. However, we are not grafted in by our own power, but by the power of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, as the Resurrected One becomes our High Priest. Therefore, in the NT we have:

Christ
/ \
Church
/ \
Humanity
/ \
Creation

Therefore we see that this is how God chooses to rule over His creation. He does not do so through meticulous predestination of all things, though He could. Instead, He chooses to act through people, and He appoints people and peoples for the purpose of representing Him and acting for Him. This is how God manifests His sovereignty.

What Does That Mean for Us?

A few different things. First of all, it means that we are responsible for what we do. We are responsible to God, not just because we are His creatures, but because we have the unique make-up to act on God's behalf. Therefore in everything we do, we represent God as we do it, whether that be consciously or unconsciously. Our sins are not simply bad things that we do, but they are things that besmear God's image, for we are God's image.

Second of all, we have a responsibility. We are supposed to represent God. As humans, we are to represent God in creation and take care of it and nurture it. Do we behave like crazy environmentalists? No. But we treat creation with respect, do what we can to bring out its beauty, but also organize it, and incorporate our own structures within it as any gardener would.

As Christians, we also represent God to other humans. As such, we need to represent Him in both justice and mercy. We don't back down from what God says is true and just, but we behave in a way that demonstrates God's love and affection for humanity. We are delegates of a benevolent king, and we should be benevolent as well. But we are still representing the king, not just some guy with really good ideas.

Third, we need to see that humans are holy: even bad ones and even unborn ones. The way we treat other humans cannot simply be based out of convenience or judgement. People deserve our respect, not because they have earned it, but because they represent God Himself. I would say, biblically speaking, that it is never good to kill a human being (though it is sometimes necessary). Killing other humans soils our hands. Even David, though he fought in God's wars, was too unclean to build God's temple.

Essentially it means that we need to treat humans with respect, not because they deserve it (because we don't), but because they represent God, and God deserves it.

Newest Development in the Obama/Israel Scandal - Satire

2011-05-22T21:02:00.004-04:00

At 8:15 this afternoon, as many of you know, President Obama has released his plan concerning Israel. He announced that he hopes to encourage Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu by a demonstration of returning the entire state of Oklahoma to Native Americans. Already this bold radical plan is beginning to start a scandal.

Robert Gibbs explains, "Many have called us hypocritical for telling Israel to return land that it won in a war while we are still living on land that we won from Native Americans. We hope that this gesture will demonstrate to Netanyahu that we are serious in believing that this is the best way to resolve this conflict." When asked why the president choose Oklahoma he stated, "It's not like we were using it anyway."

So far there have been many complaints about this plan. Tea Party leader Sarah Palin stated, "How does he expect to do this without the approval of the Oklahoma legislature? We are the United States, not the United Territories." Additionally several theatrical groups have spoken out against the plan saying that it will damage sales of the Richard Rodgers play of the same name.

Even some Native American groups have complained. One such leader stated, "It's like being given a lawn mower while living in an apartment. It is rather valuable, but what are we supposed to do with it?"

According to Gibbs, "We know that there are a lot of nay-sayers on this issue. Some think that it is foolish, and some claim that it is based off of a complete misunderstanding of the Middle East situation. However, we stand resolute. We are doing this for peace; we hope for peace... and sometimes hope is audacious."

RECENT UPDATE...

New sources have apparently confirmed that the presidents original plan was to give back Texas which we won in the Mexican-American war back to Mexico. This plan was evidently defeated when the Presidents military advisors pointed out that we didn't win Texas, but rather it was annexed. To this news, the President merely said, "oh."

The Bible and Code Words

2011-05-17T06:57:00.000-04:00

A word that is often thrown around is the word "inerrant" when referring to Scripture. Often people ask "Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?" At first glance this seems like a rather easy question, but it isn't always.

The problem is that the word has a history, and some people define it based off of that history, while others define it based off of how the word breaks down (and some define it both ways). When you break down the word, it simply means "without error or mistake". Well, I can easily say that the biblical authors and the Spirit who inspired those authors didn't make any mistakes. However, I don't like the term inerrant, and my reason is its history: what the term tends to mean by those who have used it in the past few decades.

The word came into usage because of certain debates which happened over the nature of the Bible within the 19th and 20th centuries. To make a long story short, part of the debate wasn't just whether or not the Scriptures have errors, but what actually constitutes an error. The term inerrant itself came to be identified with the camp that considered an error to anything which contradicted a perfectly literal understanding of the text.

Thus there are two kinds of people that tend to reject the term inerrancy: the liberal who rejects the reliability of Scripture, and the serious exegete who recognizes that the Scriptures are not modern texts and need to be understood within their own contexts first.

So what ends up happening is that in many places the word 'inerrant' becomes a codeword, and there are many who redefine it so that they can be in the the in-crowd. Can I affirm a document that uses the term 'inerrant'? Sure. I don't believe Scripture has errors. But I would never use that word to describe my belief by choice, and what many forget is that it is the idea that matters, not the word itself.

Should We Celebrate Osama Bin Laden's Death?

2011-05-04T03:05:00.003-04:00

Osama Bin Laden was, by definition, an evil man. However, when I found out that he had died, I was oddly somber. I remember not feeling that way when Huessein was captured (indeed I was overjoyed about that), so I wondered what was different. Then I realized that the different was death.

But why should I be sad that an evil man died? I think what it comes down to is that deep down I know that Hell has another occupant, and to me, that just doesn't seem victorious. It isn't that I am regretful that he is dead (quite the opposite in fact); it is just that I am not happy about it.

I've read two different blog posts on this issue that demonstrates both sides. One is Dr. Roger Olson's (note how his title is very similar to mine). Reading this post was like reviewing my own thoughts, which was rather nice. I do believe that death is something which is alien to creation, and that killing is never something God really wants. Even David was told that his hands were too bloody to build the temple, and the wars he had raged were righteous. Dr. Olson I believe does a very good job at both recognizing that Bin Laden was evil, and thus needed to be killed while on the other hand lamenting the loss of a soul.

On the other hand, there is my best friend Chris's post, whose blog is more politically based than theological. However, Chris does have a strong heart for God and the lost, and he does know his Bible well. His main point is that there are many places where the Bible encourages us to celebrate justice, and to rejoice in victory. He quotes I Samuel 18:6-7, though I think something like Psalm 18 would have been more appropriate. Still, his point remains valid: there is support in Scripture for rejoicing in victory, and in celebrating justice.

Where does that leave me? Well, at the risk of being Bartian, I would argue that as Christians we should be both mournful and celebratory. Every evil man's has a stint of beauty and worth to them on account of them being made in the image of God. This is not something to be blotted out. But their beauty is akin to the beauty of a dandelion, and all though it may be bright and possess in intrinsic value, that value is made moot by its aggression which places its environs in danger.

So yes, I do think that in a sense we should celebrate. We should rejoice that a major victory was made for goodness and the world. We should rejoice that a threat that existed against us has been diminished. We should rejoice that justice was done. But we should do so while mourning that this victory was an earthly one, and our Enemy achieved a victory the same night.

PS. I only use the term beauty above to make the dandelion analogy work. I mean look at the guy. What was he thinking with that beard!

HAPPY RESURRECTION SUNDAY!!!!!

2011-04-24T06:30:00.004-04:00

Our eternal hope is not spending eternity in heaven. We are not waiting for Jesus to take us to some other plane of reality. We should not be content with justification.

Christians who are solely focused on the forgiveness of sins (which is important) forget that we have an eternal hope. I am forgiven, so how can I hope for something I already have. The cross tells us what we have now, but it is in the empty tomb that we can see what our future will be.

The relevance of the resurrection is not simply that it declares that Jesus is the Messiah, though it does that. It does not simply declare that our Savior is alive and present with us, though it does that. It does not simply declare that Jesus is power, though it does that.

Ultimately it tells us that Jesus defeated death itself, and we need no longer fear it. One day, we will share in His resurrection, and enjoy the same resurrected bodies that Jesus had. We will eat along our savior forever in the New Jerusalem, on the New Earth.

It is this hope that we are declared to share throughout all the world. And it is this hope that we celebrate today.

Happy Easter.

TGIGF: Thank God It's Good Friday

2011-04-22T01:24:00.002-04:00

What I love about Good Friday is that it is the only holiday that I am aware of where we mournfully rejoice.

Mourn, for today is the day that the Lord died. Today is the day that the King of Kings sacrificed Himself. Today we mourn, and know that it was for us. He died to exonerate our sins. He died to kill Sin itself. He was beaten and bruised, scourged and flailed, hung and crucified. He bled today.

But rejoice, for today is the day is not the end. Death did not triumph over the Messiah, for it was mere flesh that was destroyed that day. Our savior lived on, and in three days hence our souls will look in awe on the power and grace of our God.

So today is a day to look back on a broken body on the cross. But it is also a day to look forward to an empty tomb. So come and mourn with me a while, for with us Christian, all mourning is for a short time.

A Certain Post

2011-04-20T01:23:00.004-04:00

Here is a post by Dr. Roger Olson on the topic of certainty. I found the post personally very beneficial since much of it articulated some of the problems I have run into in regards to my conversations with others.

Dr. Olson defines himself as a fallibilist, which he defines as someone who believes that all humans (other than Christ and infallibly inspired biblical authors) are fallible in their perspectives. Because I don't have a better term, I would say that I would therefore also be a fallibilist. One of my sayings is "I am always wrong about something, I just don't know what that something is."

Now, I think most people would accept the idea that everyone is fallible as an axiom, but I think very few people (or at least dramatically fewer people) would have this as their epistemology (epistemology is one's belief on how humans understand things). Practically speaking, most people are extremely confident in their beliefs, and hold them as if they are absolute facts.

I don't do that. For me, almost everything I believe is theory. There are very few things that I accept as definitely true, but a whole bunch that I treat as probably true. It is actually making decisions in light that you are possibly wrong that truly makes you a fallibilist.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOOD:Sick and Fussy

2011-04-18T00:16:00.004-04:00

No new parent likes the idea of their newborn child being sick. My son is 2 weeks old and sick. It sucks.

He has been keeping me up tonight because he is just not able to calm down. It is like he isn't comfortable in his own skin. Finally, I swaddled him up, and he has been fine since then (swaddling= permanent blanket hug).

At this point he isn't very aware of who I am (I don't entirely know if he knows what I am, or if I am a thing or just an image he sees occasionally). He does seem somewhat unaware of me sometimes, especially when he is suffering somehow (like being hungry). He gets so caught up in what he wants/needs that he becomes oblivious to how hard I am trying to help him.

This made me think about bit about God. A lot of times we have to deal with some troubling times: trials and suffering. God often feels distant at these times. The old theologians called it "The Dark Night of the Soul". David sings of it quite often. I remember often being told that God is there for me during those times, and having trouble believing it. I believe it anyway, but it just takes effort.

Now I kind of know the other side of that. Here I am, desperately trying to help my son, and he isn't very aware of me at all. His suffering blinds him to my presence as his discomfort overloads his nervous system. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to want to stop him from suffering, but just knowing that this is something he just simply has to work through. So I'm just there for him, holding him. Sometimes, that's all God is doing to: holding us as we go through those things that we just have to go through.

Apocalyptic PieAmerican Pie As Modern Apocolyptic Writing

2011-04-15T12:00:00.007-04:00

Anyone who has frequented this site can tell you that analyzing songs is a hobbey of mine. I believe that analyzing songs makes good exegetical practice, and allows us to hone the skills necessary for properly reading Scripture. Though I have another post which explains this in more detail, I'll give the basic reasons here in summary:

Songs are short structured works which makes them easy to analyze
Modern songs are written within our socio-political context meaning that we don't need commentaries

Probably the hardest texts to analyze in the Bible are the Apocalyptic works because we don't have anything like this in modern literature. It is a literary form that our culture is completely unfamiliar with. Except for one song...

I believe that American Pie is very similar to an apolcalyptic work. It is not exactly the same (the very fact that it is a song means that it is not exactly the same), but it uses the same kind of literary structures that make apocalyptic writing so difficult to understand. Therefore, analyzing this song may help many interpret Biblical books such as Revelation and Daniel.

What is Apocalyptic Writing?

First of all, apocalypse does not mean the end of the world. The Greek word 'apokalypsis' means revelation. Apocalyptic writing is essentially a particular literary genre that existed in Jewish antiquity which revealed the divine purposes behind current or future events. It did this by casting events, nations and personages into metaphor which describe their true spiritual nature. All of these works claim to be visions sent to the writer by God (and the ones in the Bible truly were) and as such the metaphors are understood to be representatives of nations and persons on the spiritual plane. Here is a very straightforward definition from The Apocalyptic Imagination by John J. Collins:

A genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another supernatural world. (5)

So what are their basic features:

Polyvalent metaphor: A polyvalent metaphor is a metaphor that refers to more than one thing at once. For example, the beasts in Daniel and Revelation refer both to kings and the nations and peoples of those kings simultaneously. Additionally, it can refer to the way in which a metaphor may actually change its referent.
Metonym: A metonym is when you refer to something by referring to something else which is related to it. For instance, when we say the White House says something, we do not mean that the building itself spoke. Instead we are referring to the Presidential Administration by way of metonym. Another example is when we say "Use your head" we actually mean "use your mind" or think. The entire genre of apocalyptic writing is one big metonym, where the events are described by talking about the spiritual forces behind those events. Additionally, judgements are not usually described specifically, but often refer to the entire state of the planet as being in chaos and disarray. This is also metonym.
Interpreted Events: The point of Apocalypse isn't to explain to us what events happened, or what events are going to happen. The point is to explain why, and what the effects of these events are. They are explaining the power behind the events rather than the events themselves.
Intermittence: Events are not told in chonological order, but instead are told in discreet snippets. These snippets may chronilogically overlap, or the last event may be told first, or they may be the retelling of exactly the same event, or they may be drastically different time periods, or they may actually be chronological. For instance, Revelation is split into 5 sets of seven, as well as having these sets of seven interupted by other images. these snippets may blend together, or they may be completely isolated from each other. Usually these snippets can stand alone, and create a single image. However the snippets will often slightly reference each other.

So What's So Apolacalyptic About American Pie?

Intermittance

I think a lot of people don't really understand the song, so let me explain it is brief. American Pie is about the 1960s, specifically about our loss of our traditional sense of what it meant to be American. It does this by going through the events within the music industry of the 1960s. However, these events are all described in metaphoric snippets.

For instance, verse 1 is Don delivering papers as a boy, verse 2 is Don at a prom being rejected by a girl, verse 3 is a medival courtroom scene with a coup from a jester, verse 4 is a football game, verse 5 is a Satanic sacrificial ritual, and verse 6 is a return to Don's hometown after some disaster. These images are drastically different from each other, and yet are united by the fact that they are all metaphors for the same time period. This is typical apocalyptic intermittance.

Let's take this concept to the book of Revelation. The book is easily divided into 5 groups of seven: Seven churches, seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, seven great events. One of the great mistakes of interpreting Revelation is to take it as being continuous, but most commentaries that I have read (and my Revelation professor in college) stressed the cyclical nature of Revelation. Each of these groups of seven need to be interpreted as discreet units. I mean discreet, not seperate (like Psalms are seperate). These units absolutely interact with each other, but they also need to be understood in terms of what they are distinctly before we can appropriately look at how they interact.

Polyvalent Metaphor

Polyvalent metaphors are metaphors that stand for more than one thing. For instance, let's examine the jester. Like in most apocalyptic writing, the jester doesn't really fit into the image appropriately: he's a medival person wearing James Dean's leather jacket and attends football games. The James Dean jacket had having a voice "that came from you and me" identifies him as Bob Dillan who is described as usurping Elvis (the King). However, Dillan in life represented an entire generation, and he as a person within the song represents that new order of thinking coming into power. The point of the verse isn't merely the rising popularity of Dillan at that time, nor the (very temporary) loss of popularity for Elvis. Instead the image is the imagery of rebellion: a commoner taking down a monarch, and this is the initial event of being "on our own" discussed in the beginning of the verse, implying that this was the beginning of all the woes that are to follow. This is what is meant by polyvalence.

Ok, how does this compare to Revelation. Let's look at the great prostitute of Revelation 17. The great prostitute is said to be Babylon, however the 7 hill reference identifies it as Rome. Which is it? Both. It is the spirit of Babylon in Rome. Additionally, the prostitute refers to the religon of Rome specificially since she is described in religous terms. Also, does this actually refer to the city of Rome, or to a city that is like Rome? Considering that Rome and Babylon is likened to each other, we can't assume that this must be one city or the other. It could very well be a city that is like both Rome and Babylon. Additionally, it doesn't just refer to the physical city itself, but to the city as the seat of government. Therefore, we have a metaphor that is drawing from mulitple images as well as possibly refering to multiple things as well. If all of this sounds confusing, don't worry.

It is precisely the feature of polyvalent metaphor that makes apocalyptic writing (and American Pie) so difficult to intepret. The key to interpreting both is to allow the writing to create an image in your mind. The imagery, and the feeling of the imagery, is actually more important to interpretation than figuring out exactly what it means. Indeed, the metaphors aren't exact, so they don't exactly mean anything! This isn't meant to be a secret code, but a painting with words. The more you treat it that way, the easier (and truer) interpretation becomes.

Metonym

Metonymy is that figure of speech where you refer to something by talking about something related to it. A metonym is often confused with a metaphor, since you have one thing standing in for something else. However, metaphor is a form of comparison, where you have the two ideas are different from each other, and they are being compared for the sake of pointing out what little they have in common.

For instance, if I call Todd a pig, that is a metaphor. Todd is not a pig, nor does he have anything to do with pigs in his life. The one thing that he has in common is he acts like one, hence the metaphor. However, if I say "Many hands make light work", that is a metonym. While it is true that people are not hands, they do have them. Indeed, the expression is referring directly to what their hands are doing: working. There is no comparison going on. It is only a means of emphasis. This means of emphasizing an aspect of a thing by referring to something related to that thing is metonymy.

What is important about metonymy in both American Pie and Apocalyptic literature is that both use it as an overall structure. The entire structure is merely a metonym for something else.

Let's take American Pie. All the verses are describing events in music history (in song order): the death of Buddy Holly in verse 1, sock hops of the 1050s, Rolling Stones (mentioned in verse 3 and emphasized in verse 5), Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, the Byrds, the Rolling Stones concert at Altamont Motor speedway, and Janice Joplin. Additionally, he re-purposes the lyrics of the music of his era, often specifically the songs of the groups that he is referencing (Rolling Stones' Jumping Jack Flash, The Beatles' Helter Skelter, The Byrds' Eight Miles High, and, of course Buddy Holly's That'll Be the Day). However, it would be an error to believe that McLean was only interested in the music industry. Instead, he is referencing the Flower Child revolution of the 1960s, and he is using the music industry as an overarching metonym.

Just like metonymy is at the interpretive heart of American Pie, it is also at the interpretive heart of Apocalyptic literature. One major unifying element of Apocalyptic literature, and this is different from American Pie itself, is that they are divine visions. These visions are not understood as being metaphors for the nations and leaders in the world. They are understood as being representations of angelic/demonic forces behind these nations and leaders. This isn't to say that the nations and leaders are not in purview, but that they are metonymously referred to by their supernatural forces. This is very evident in the beginning of Revelation where John is writing to the "angels of the churches" rather than to the churches themselves.

Interpreted Events

One final point that needs to be made here is that both Apocalyptic literature and American Pie are, at the end of the day, referring to real events. However, they are not simply telling/retelling these events for the sake of history, nor are they even trying to tell you what happened. Instead, they are telling you why, and what the result is.

It is clear that American Pie is indeed influenced by Christianity simply from its overt references to religious themes. While American Pie is not about the end of the world, it is about the end of America as we knew it in the 1950s, hence saying good-bye to American Pie. The song recounts the events of the 1960s as America looses its innocence, and turns its worship away from God and towards Rock 'n Roll and celebrities. This site does the best job I have ever seen at explain the details behind the song, but, like all apocalypses, American Pie cannot be understood simply be identifying its referents. Its imagery and tone are necessary for properly understanding the tone as you allow those images to clarify your own personal feelings about where America is, or where is was in the early 1970s when the song was written. It isn't about what happened, but what was lost, and the angst in losing that first love with America.

It is our desire to strip away the imagery of biblical apocalypses and get to the events themselves that disrupts our ability to really look at the books as the truly are. It isn't good enough to identify who the four horsemen are. Once you know what they are, you need to then envision them as horsemen charging through humanity, tearing down civilization. It is not good enough to identify who the Antichrist is; you need to understand that he is really a beast, who is more horrid than his human form allows us to see. Don't just recognize that the goat in Daniel is Alexander, but see Alexander as a goat recklessly attacking forward against all adversaries.

I don't want to say that identification isn't important. We need to know what they are talking about to know what they are talking about. But "solving the code" isn't the objective of interpreting these kinds of works. Instead, we need to learn to look beyond just the events themselves, and understand what the purposes for these events are. After all, that's the whole point of the revelations.

Princess BrideMarking out my life

2011-04-08T13:30:00.004-04:00

The movie The Princess Bride has now marked a third major event in my life.

I have always enjoyed the movie, ever since I was a kid, but it is my wife Esther's favorite movie. Back in 2006, I had noticed that she didn't own it yet. Therefore, I had bought for her. When it was time to propose, it was one of the many gifts that I gave her (My proposal plan was fairly complex, involving gifts, riddles, and cherry limeade).

We got married a year later. We had a really difficult time picking out a song to dance to because we hadn't really had a song "moment". We ended up going with You Are So Beautiful, but the song didn't really mean that much to us. However, my wife's best friend mentioned to me in private that she had a copy of the theme song to Princess Bride. So we hatched a plot. At the reception, Esther and I danced to You Are So Beautiful, and then afterwards we were supposed to sit down. I stopped her, and then nodded to the DJ. He started to play Storybook Story. First time she cried as a married woman.

So this brings us to the third event marked by Princess Bride. As I have mentioned in an earlier post, Esther and I have been expecting a baby. In fact, Esther had been having mild contractions for the past month or so. Last Friday, Esther and I were watching Princess Bride, simply because we love the movie. Afterwards, as we watched the special features, Esther started to feel her contractions pick up in speed. After some phone tag with doctors and family members, we decided that even though she wasn't feeling any pain, we should still head out to the hospital.

Once there, we found that she wasn't actually into labor yet (April Fools!). However, the baby's heart-rate dipped a bit. Apparently this is quite common, being caused when the umbilical cord gets squeezed by the contractions, but they still wanted to keep him monitored. We had no desire to argue, so we ended up staying the night, often quoting lines from a certain movie to ease the stress.

At 3 am Saturday, things intensified and Esther went into labor. 7 am I woke up. That's right, I'm a terrible husband (actually, Esther didn't let them wake me because she is an amazing wife). The rest of that day was trying to balance getting the contractions moving with keeping the baby's heart-rate up, which ended up being a very delicate balance. My parents came out so we had some company most of the day, but they needed to go to bed by midnight. It wasn't until 3am Sunday that they determined that they needed to perform a C-section.

So, Martin the fifth was born Sunday, April 3rd, 3:42am. He's a strong healthy boy, and cuter then every baby in the place (I know because I'm objective). He was 8lb 6oz, and 20 1/4 inches. We are now home, and learning all sorts of new things about our new son. I wonder what his favorite movie will be...

Praise Choruses

2011-03-13T07:00:00.002-04:00

I haven't done a song analysis in a while, and there are a couple of been thinking of doing. So, I'm going to be lazy and do the one that will take the least effort: Blessed Be Your Name by Matt Redman. There are two basic reasons: A) I thoroughly enjoy the elegant simplicity of the song and how fully utilizes its structure to communicate the song's meaning and B) I consider this song to epitomize the modern praise chorus, in the very best sense of the word. Therefore, I also want to use an analysis of this song as an apologetic of the modern praise chorus.

Praise Chorus V.S. Hymn FIGHT!

First of all, I find the worship wars of our time to be annoying, silly, and, quite frankly, embarrassing. I believe that hymns and praise choruses to be different in purpose and thus not mutually exclusive in use.

Most hymns were written during eras of theological strife and were written as theological primers. Some are better at it than others, but there is no doubt that the point was to teach. Praise choruses are being written in response to the spiritual stagnation and emotional disconnect that many have found in traditional churches. They are also most popular within low liturgical churches and, for many of these churches, constitutes the full extent of the participation of the laity during the service (except for the tithe of course ;-) ). Thus the purpose of the praise chorus is engagement (which is not the same thing is emotionalism BTW).

Many of the "hymn-only" exponents will of course reply, "But hymns engage too!" Yes, they do, but praise choruses also teach. The difference is a difference in emphasis, and we need to recognize that since both things are necessary within a church service, it is not unwise to utilize both the praise chorus and the hymn.

For instance in Blessed Be Your Name, there is actually a very clear lesson: praise God regardless of circumstances. This is not merely engaging in emotion, but a very clear attempt to teach a very important Christian message. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the song not only teaches, but trains by giving us something to say in praise in both the good times and the bad.

Structure

Despite its claims and reputation for being informal, the praise chorus has tended to have a very formal structure:

Verse 1
Pre-chorus
Chorus
Verse 2
Pre-chorus
Chorus
Bridge
Chorus (repetitions)

There are, of course, many examples of variation of this order (especially the absence of the pre-chorus), but the pieces tend to be the same, and the order tends to be what is above.

What is interesting is that these parts also tend to have rather specific relations to the song's theme. What most people remember most is the chorus (hence the name of the genre) for two reasons: the chorus is often repeated 9,000 times (and is designed for it), and because the chorus tends to be very simple and emotive. Indeed, the chorus tends to be the emotionalreaction to the theme, usually directed towards God. For instance, if you wanted to understand what the theme to Blessed Be Your Name is, you couldn't find it in the chorus. It just doesn't give enough data. Indeed, the chorus is much more an application of the point of the song (praising God regardless of circumstances) rather than an explanation of it.

The verses on the other hand tend to be a didactic or revisionary treatment of the theme. Indeed, the verses tend to be far less emotional, slower, and more articulate. It doesn't always directly explain the theme itself, but it does lay the mental foundation for the overall point. It is here that you are going to find the song's subtleties (if any), qualifications, and theological articulation. For instant, in Blessed Be Your Name, both verses are made up of two parts, one describing the good times and one describing the bad. In each case, the good times and the bad are enveloped with the declaration of "Blessed be Your name", implying that we bless God in both circumstances.

The prechorus is essentially there to transition from the verse to the chorus. Mostly this is because the verses and choruses are dramatically different in purpose and tempo for the majority praise choruses. The prechorus often does this by musical crescendo, and also by some kind of lyrical shift as well. Sometimes it summarizes the theme as we move to reaction; sometimes it contrasts the thoughts in the verses with the coming emotional response; but it also can use any number of other transitional devices. (Blessed Be Your Name uses summary by the way)

Finally, we come to the bridge. The basic point of the bridge, in my opinion, is a secondary thing to repeat in an effort to break up the monotony of repeating the chorus. Therefore the bridge tends to represent one's reaction to the theme. However, unlike the chorus, it doesn't tend to be purely emotional (though still rather emotional), but is instead usually more reflective. It is actually in the bridge that we usually find the resolution to the thoughts of the verses, rather than in the chorus. First instance, in Blessed Be Your Name you have an emotional response but articulated with a biblical verse (Job 1:21) so is therefore clearly focused on the theme.

To understand how these parts all relate to one another, it may be rather helpful to think of the praise chorus as a narrative. Theological musings or observations of life (verses) forces us into a kind of crisis of faith (theme of the song). This crisis brings us to an emotional revelation of God (chorus) that we then praise. Eventually, this leads us to reflection (bridge).

Therefore, back to my original thesis, praise choruses aren't bland, and they aren't pure emotion (though some can be). They are narratives that move us through a belief or idea so that we can integrate it into our lives practically, and that is something very beneficial for the church.

Ode to Rochester in the Winter

2011-03-02T01:15:00.011-05:00

As winter is coming to an end, I thought I would look back on this fair city and reflect on what it was like this past season. In doing so, I wrote this ode (To the tune of "Satisfaction" by the Stones):

I can't get no proper traction
I can't get no proper traction
Though I try, and I try
And I try, and I try
I CAN'T GET NO, I CAN'T GET NO

As I'm driving in my car
And the stones come on the radio
And as the road turns more and more
I completely lose track of my steerin'
And then the car just starts veerin'
I can't get no... Oh no no no...
Hey hey hey, get out of my way!

I can't get no proper traction
I can't got no measly fraction
Though I try, and I try
But I can't drive, how am I alive
I CAN'T GET NO, I CAN'T GET NO

As I'm headin' out east,
And I'm suddenly off the street
And then I look up and see a tree
And when hittin' it causes my engine to smoke
I get out for the life of me
I can't get no... Oh no no no...
Hey hey hey, But I'm still OK

I can't get no proper traction
I ain't got no time for reaction
And I've tried, and I've tried,
But I'll die, so good-bye
I CAN'T GET NO, I CAN'T GET NO

When I'm ridin' around the town
And I'm doin' this and doin' that
And some guy pulls out from nowhere
And as I'm spinning into a record store
I'm lovin' this snow more and more
I can't get no, Oh no no no...
Hey hey hey, that's what I say

I can't get no, I can't get no,
I can't get no proper traction
no proper traction, no proper traction, really no traction

Weighing in a bit on politics

2011-02-24T16:40:00.003-05:00

I don't usually blog about politics because I don't consider myself very knowledgable on the subject. I am principly a theologian, and my understanding of politics is more theorhetical than practical.

However, I have found some of the discussion surrounding President Barak Obama lately interesting. President Obama, in my opinion, is someone who doesn't seem to understand that people disagree with him. He seems to view any detractor as a fringe subversive, rather than as a respected opponent. This has caused him to act in rather uncooth ways in regards to how he pushes his agenda.

Two recent events I think have really clarified this. First of all, there is the entire affair regarding the Honorable Judge Vinson. Vinson declares Obama's healthcare to be unconstitutional, yet Obama continued to enforce it. Techiniquely, as I understand it, the bill is in limbo until it is heard by the Supreme Court. Thus Obama has no actual authority to enforce anything, yet he still attempted to.

A second thing is the recent attack on DOMA, which I think it his attempt to say "Look I really am for the constitution" in a way that still is consistant with his overall agenda. However, ironically, DOMA doesn't really go against the constitution at all. It merely says that the federal government isn't allowed to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to get around state decisions on gay marriage. There are really only two sections to DOMA, considering the section 1 is just naming the thing: Article 2 which is making something official which was already true; that no state is under the obligation to hold up another states law if it contradicts its only public policy. Article 3, which is a bit more contraversial, is defining the terms marriage and spouse only in regards to how they are used within federal documents and agencies (a fact that seems to be routinely ignored). So I don't really see how this is supporting the Constitution.

I have always heald that I don't particularly care about gay marriage: I only care that it remains under the juridiction of the states to decide policy on the matter. I still stand by that, and it seems to me that Obama is trying to get around that. He seems to continuely undermine state authority. I don't like the consolidation of federal power, and it has increasely come to my attention that this is precisely what the current president's agenda is.

Calvinism Myths

2010-12-27T02:53:00.007-05:00

I was recently pointed to this post by Calvinist Michael C. Patton, who I respect a great deal. Here he lists 12 myths that he believes are levied against Calvinism. I wanted to review a couple of these and add my own thoughts on them. Some I think are legitamate myths, some I really do not.

**UPDATE** Since I made this post, I made some editions. Typos I just corrected, but anything added is in italics

1. Calvinism is not system of theology that denies God’s universal love.
While there are some Calvinists who do deny God’s universal love for all man, this is certainly not a necessary or a central tenet of Calvinism. Calvinists do, however, believe that God has a particular type of love for the elect (an “electing love”), but most also believe that God loves all people (John 3:16). It is a mystery to Calvinist as to why he does not elect everyone. (More on this here.)

I have to agree with Patton that this is to some degree a myth. To some degree. Every respectable Calvinist that I have met agrees that God universally loves all, and that God not electing some is a mystery.

In the end, this statement is really an argument against Calvinism, rather than a myth. It is an ethical argument which states that God couldn't possibly love all men if He refuses to save them. I think this argument is valid. While I concede that it is a myth that non-hyper-calvinists believe this, I think it takes either impressive mental gymnastics or intention ignorance to pull it off.

I would like to add that this is something that the Bible is a bit clear about: those that are not saved are not saved because they reject God. This is clear. One of the reasons that I don't believe in Calvinism is that they take things like responsiblity, love, and divine goodness and make them mysterious. These are things that the Bible is clear about. Meanwhile, they take things like omniscience, and omnipotence and seem to think that these ideas should be understood perfectly. It's like they have the mystery in the wrong places.

2. Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell.
Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.)

Again it is true that most Calvinists don't believe this. But some do, and that is a bit scary. In fact, supralapsarianism (which is not the same thing as hyper calvinism BTW) was the theological position that Arminius was opposing at the time of his life.

3. Calvinism is not belief that God is the author of evil.
Because of Calvinism’s high view of God’s sovereignty, many mistakenly believe that Calvinists hold God responsible for sin and evil. This is not true. There are very few Calvinists who believe that God is the author of evil. Most Calvinists believe that to ascribe responsibility for evil to God is heretical.

This is the primary area where I am happy that Calvinists are inconsistent with their beliefs. I've never met a Calvinist that would say that God is the author of evil, but, at the same time, they believe that everything that happens God decreed to have happened and made it so. In other words, God may have caused it, but He isn't responsible for it. Why He is not responsible may depend on the Calvinist, and is often overly complex. But even though I know that Calvinists don't believe that, I would have to if I actually accepted predeterminism. It is just the logical consequent.

Again, this is an example of something that isn't a myth, but an argument. I don't know any Arminian who thinks that Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil. However most, if not all, Arminians that I know (including myself) believe that if Calvinism where true, than God created evil.

4. Calvinism is not a belief in fatalism.
A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control, though Calvinists differ about how meticulous this control is.

I find Patton's definition of fatalism interesting, especially since that isn't really what it means. Fatalism is the belief that everything which happens is inevitable: it is your fate. Why that is your fate can vary among fatalists, and many believe that your fate is set by personal omnipotent beings (such as the three Fates in Greek mythology). So saying that Calvinists don't believe in fatalism because God is an intelligent guide, to me, is based more on a very unique definition of fatalism.

Fatalism is to some degree a contested term, but usually within such debates fatalism is about the futility of human actions in terms of what their ultimate destiny will be. In this sense, one could say that Calvinism is fatalist, in the sense that humanity really can't affect its destiny.

On the other hand, one could say that Calvinism isn't fatalist, because that isn't part of the emphasis of Calvinism, like calling someone at a recycling depot a garbageman. Within Calvinism, no one is really trapped by their destiny. Instead, they are priviledged to it. For this reason, I don't tend to call Calvinists "Fatalists". Another way to say it is that Fatalism is pessimistic about determinism, Calvinism is rather optimistic about it.

Mind you, I don't think that this is much better. Calvinism is rather self-observed in its theology in my opinion. "God chose me to be saved for all eternity, unlike the vast majority of humanity! Isn't God wonderful?" You can kind of see why those who aren't Calvinist see this as fatalism. A reprobate may say, "Sure you aren't trapped by your fate, but the rest of us are!" Therefore, Calvinism is only sorta fatalist. It is fatalist in its worldview, but not in its attitude about it. However that is hardly a glowing recommendation.

5. Calvinism is not a denial of freedom.
Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.)

By "properly defined free will" he means "free will as defined completely differently from all of history before Calvin and from every other belief system than Calvinism." I personally think that compatibablist free will is philosophical incoherant (More on this here.) It's like calling a blueberry a grape, and then only listing the similarities. So, yes, Calvinism is a denial of freedom, while compatibalism is simply being in denial.

6. Calvinism is not a belief that God forces people to become Christians against their will.
Calvinists believe in what is called “irresistible grace.” This might not be the best name for it since it does not really communicate what is involved. Calvinists believe that people are dead in the sin (Eph 2:1), haters of God, with no ability to seek him in their natural state (Rom 3:11; John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14). Since this is the case, God must first regenerate them so that they can have faith. Once regenerate, people do not need to be forced to accept God, but this is a natural reaction—a willing reaction—of one who has been born again and, for the first time, recognizes the beauty of God.

So once they are forced to be regenerate, they are not forced to become Christians?.... Right. Thank you for the clarification.

To be frank, Augustine, who Calvin based his thoughts on, was insistant that he was forced to become a Christian. The percentage of Calvinists that describe their salvation experience as being dragged kicking and screaming is also quite high. I'm sorry Michael, but if you were being honest with yourself, you would simply learn to claim this one.

7. Calvinism is not a belief that you should only evangelize the elect.
No one knows who the elect are. I suppose that if there was a way to find out, both Calvinist and Arminians (the other primary option to Calvinism) would only evangelize the elect (since Arminians also believe only the elect will be saved even though they understand election differently). Since we don’t know, it is our duty to evangelize all people and nations. Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of Christianity, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, have held to the doctrine of unconditional election.

Have to agree with Michael on this one being a myth. Calvinism does not teach you should only evangelize the elect, but that evangelism is the process through which the elect are revealed. Mind you, many Calvinists have rejected evangelism in history. Indeed, I think evangelism is something that Calvinists have had to "make work" with their theology, rather than something which flows naturally from it.

8. Calvinism is not a belief that God arbitrarily chooses people to be saved.
Calvinists believe that God elects some people to salvation and not others and that this election is not based on anything present or foreseen, righteous or unrighteous, in the individual, but upon his sovereign choice. But this does not mean that the choice is arbitrary, as if God is flipping a coin to see who is saved and who is not. Calvinists believe that God has his reasons, but they are in his mysterious secret will.

This isn't a myth. It is not "Election by Unknown Conditions", but "Unconditional Election". In Calvinism, God has reasons for electing, as a general concept. The elect may also have a very specific demographic that God has planned. But according to true Calvinism there is no condition, or attribute that belongs to the person which causes them to be elect instead of someone else. There is another word for that: arbitrary (actually two. You could also say random).

9. Calvinism is not a system of thought that follows a man, John Calvin.
While Calvinists obviously respect John Calvin, they simply believe that he correctly understood and systematized some very important Apostolic teachings concerning election, man’s condition, and God’s sovereignty. However, much of this understanding did not originate with John Calvin, but can be seen in many throughout church history such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Ultimately, Calvinists will argue, they follow rightly interpreted Scripture.

I agree that it is a myth to say that Calvinism is just based off of John Calvin, but Calvin is still who defines Calvinism. Many Calvinists disagree with Calvin on things. So fine, this is a myth.

Oh, if you want to list people who believed in Arminian theology: Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Ignatius, Athenatius, Basil, both Gregories, Tertullian, and pretty much everyone else who predates Augustine, not to mention Francis of Assisi, the Council of Orange and probably a few more that predate Calvin.

10. Calvinism is not a system that has to ignore or reinterpret passages of Scripture concerning human responsibility.
Calvinists believe that all people are responsible to do what is right, even though, as fallen children of Adam, they lack ability to do what is right (in a transcendent sense; see below) without God’s regenerating grace. Therefore, God’s call and commands apply to all people and all people are responsible for their rejection and rebellion.

It does have to reinterpret them. Sorry. This is just what it means to have Christians that disagree with you. Naturally you think that I am reinterpreting verses, and conversely I think that you are doing likewise.

11. Calvinists do not believe that no one can do any good thing at all.
Calvinists believe in what is called “total depravity” (so do Arminians). However, total depravity does not mean that people cannot ever do anything good. Calvinists believe that unregenerate people can do many good things and sometimes even act better than Christians. But when it comes to people’s disposition toward God and their acknowledgment of him for their abilities, gifts, and future, they deny him and therefore taint all that they are and do. An unbeliever, for example, can love and care for their children just as a believer can. In and of itself this is a very good thing. However, in relation to God this finds no eternal or transcendent favor since they are at enmity with him, the Giver of all things. Therefore, it might be said, while all people can do good, only the regenerate can do transcendent good.

This is kind of awkward. OK, yes, Calvinists do believe that unbelievers can do good, but classic Calvinism believes this for completely different reasons than Michael states. Classic Calvinism believes in "common grace", or grace that God extends to everyone which prevents sin from completely running amuck.

12. Calvinists do not necessarily believe that God predestines (wills) everything, including the color of socks I chose this morning.
There is a spectrum to belief about God’s sovereignty in Calvinism. The one thing that unites all Calvinists is their belief in God’s sovereign choice to elect some people to salvation and not others. However, Calvinists differ concerning God’s involvement in other areas (for more on this, see here). Some Calvinists believe in what might be called “meticulous sovereignty”, where God has not only predestined people to salvation, but also he has predestined everything that occurs. As the old saying goes: “There is not a maverick molecule in the universe.” However, most Calvinists believe in what might be called “providential sovereignty.” Here, Calvinists would distinguish between God’s permissive will and his sovereign will. In his permissive will, many things happen that he permits, but is not necessarily bringing about as the first cause. In his sovereign will, many things happen because of his direct intervention (for more on this, see here).

I have no problem with the notion of "providential soveriegnty." Indeed, as an Arminian, I believe in providential soveriegnty. Patton is the only Calvinist I have ever met though to believe in it as well. If he wants to call that "not necessarily believing", than fine. But his personal beliefs does not qualify something as being a myth. Standard Calvinist theology states that God meticulously controls everything, and always has.

A Great Article on Corporate Election

2010-10-22T15:59:00.001-04:00

Dr. Brian Abasciano has written an absolutely fantastic article in response to Dan Wallace on the issue of Corporate Election. For those of you who are interested, here's a link:
Dr. Brian Abasciano Responds To Dr. Dan Wallace On The Issue Of Corporate Election

BABY

2010-10-02T00:26:00.002-04:00

Hey everyone, I just wanted to do a bit of a personal update, since things have been fairly blank here for a while.

First of all, my wife is currently 3 months pregnant for our first child :D. So that's really exciting. I'm a guy, so I don't know how to talk about this... so I'll just move on.

Second, I don't know if I've mentioned this on my blog, but I got a new job a few months ago working with people with developmental disabilities. It is a really good job, and the agency has a spiritual care department which I hope to be able to transfer into within the next couple of years. If, at some point, I don't really think that is going to happen, I intend to start looking for a chaplaincy position, but I'll wait at least three years before really pursuing that. I would rather move within this organization since I really like it.

Third, and this is completely unrelated, I've often talked about having "a list" of movies that I really need or want to see. I've never really composed such a list... until now! Some are on the list because, as a lover of film, that are landmark movies that are important for reference. Others are on there because I just flat out want to see them. Then there are a couple that I'm just a tad curious about. So I thought I would print it here and see if anyone has any other films I should probably add (I know there are some, but I only compiled this list in 15 minutes):

* seen it before (or part of it) but don't remember it well

*All About Eve
Blade Runner
* Breakfast at Tiffany's
Book of Eli
The Bridge Over the River Kwai
Bringing Up Baby (Cary Grant and K Hepburn)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
* Casablanca
Die Hard 2 & 4 (Because I've seen 1 & 3)
Dr. Strangelove
* Enter the Dragon
Godfather
Gone With the Wind
The Good, the Bad, And the Ugly
The Greatest Story Ever Told
Iron Man II
The Lady Eve
Laurence of Arabia
Mad Max
The Maltese Falcon
Modern Times (Chaplin)
One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
* Pink Panther
Point Break
Raging Bull
* Roman Holiday
The Searchers
Seven Samurai
Sunset Blvd
Thank You For Smoking
The Third Man
Toy Story 3
Tron

Important or interesting film, but not really sure if I should and/or want to see it

12 Monkeys
2001 A Space Oddessy
*Animal House
Annie Hall
Butterfly Effect (People tell me that its bad, but I'm curious about time paradox stories)
The Graduate
Green Hornet
House of the Flying Daggers
Inception
Inherit the Wind (I want to see it for masochistic reasons)
Kick "butt" (From what I understand, there is a lot of cursing and violence.)
Saving Private Ryan (Again, a lot of violence)
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Watchmen

A Few Points About the Bible That May Make People Hate Me

2010-09-20T05:31:00.004-04:00

The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books. There is a difference between a book (a single piece of literature) and a codex (a means of publishing literary works where edges of paper are bound by cord or glue to a single binding). You can have a book that takes up more than one codex (usually each codex being called a volume) or you can have several books contained in a single codex. The Bible is 66 books in one codex, and as such each book needs to be treated differently, and as a whole

The Biblical Books Are Independent. Though it is true that any good theologian is going to be taking the Bible as a whole when forming his/her theology, it is also true that each book is a self-contained unit. They need to be treated as distinct

The Bible has multiple genres. You cannot treat the whole bible as if it is a collection of aphorisms (sentences that can stand alone). One needs to be sensitive in regards to what genre you are dealing with.

The Bible has multiple authors. As cute as it is to say that God is the author of the Bible, in truth God inspired many different authors to write the Bible, and each author used his own perspective and manner of phrasing into the text. This doesn't undermind that there is a divine origin as to what is being written, but it does mean that when it comes to "interpreting Scripture with Scripture" we cannot pretend the Paul and James must mean the same thing with a certain term or phrase.

The Bible is translated. This means that the infallibility of the Bible is tied to the original text, not to the translation. You cannot fully grasp what the Bible means from English, no matter how many times you read it,though you can understand everything that really matters. But when it comes to contraversial topics, you should be familiar with the original text.

Rhetorical Translation: Acrostics

2010-08-22T07:33:00.001-04:00

I've had the idea for a while now that we should translate some of the rhetorical structures of the original languages. This doesn't necessarily mean that we copy them (though in some instances it will), but that we use rhetorical devices in English which serve a similar purpose.

This concept becomes the most poignant in the poems. I have always had trouble reading the Psalms because they don't feel like poetry to me. I see that as a failure of the translation: poems should feel like poems. Simply changing the indentation isn't enough for me.

Some things are simple: throw in some rhyme to group sections together that are clearly grouped in the Hebrew

If there is alliteration, use alliteration (even if it is not precisely in the same place, or if it isn't the "best english word" to mean what the Hebrew meant)

If there is a pun, establish at least some kind of word connection (puns are untranslatable, but there are other ways to connect two words)

Now I do not consider myself and expert on either language (Greek and Hebrew), so I know there are complexities that I am not taking into account here. Additionally, I know not everything is translatable, but I do think we can do better to represent not only what the authors said, but how they said it.

Now what I have given some more thought to is the Hebrew acrostic poem. The alphabetical acrostic is an incredibly common poetic form in Hebrew. However, translating that structure into English is quite difficult. Here are some of my thoughts:

A different structure that serves a similar purpose

Though I know some rhythmic and rhyming structures that can stretch across a poem, I don't know any that can bring the kind of stylized unity as an acrostic

Using the English Alphabet
1. The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letter. English as 26. I don't think it's right to just add or split lines to make the acrostic work (especially if you try to do Psalm 119 that way)
2. Not all English letters are easy to use in acrostics, like 'j', 'z', or 'x' (though 'x' you could solve by use the 'ex' prefix, but there are still other leters)
3. Though it would seem the first and second problem could solve itself (take out 4 problem letters), in order to make an quasi-alphabetical acrostic like that work, you would need to have the most important letter groups, especially the two most important: abc and xyz. Out of all the letters to remove, 'z' is the most important since there are less usable words starting with 'z' than any other letter.

Using the Transliterated Hebrew Alphabet
1. You still have 'z' to contend with (The Hebrew letter zayin)
2. There are some Hebrew letters that don't have English equivalents. This isn't that bad though since the letters alef and ayin can use two vowels to represent them (I would recommend 'a' and 'e'), the letter chet is usually represented as a 'ch' anyway, and that really only leaves the letter tsade (it makes a "ts" sound).
3. You have recurring sounds in letters. Again this isn't too bad. You can use 'sh' instead of sin, 'th' instead of tav, and kaph and qoph have 'k' and 'q' (or 'k' and 'c' if you want to be nice to yourself).
4. The Hebrew Alphabet isn't known to the English public, so it won't really serve the same funtion. If this is the case, we would essentially have to rely on people learning "Hebrews used acrostics" or simply noticing that so many poems use this same letter order (Psalm 119 will help in that observation).

It is really that last point that I am thinking about the most. A strict English alphabet is out of the question, and a modified one is just cumbersome. Thus if we are essentially relying on consistancy anyway, using Hebrew order makes some sense. But if we still have to get around 'z' , and we have to replace tsade, are we still really using the Hebrew alphabet, and if so, isn't it better to go with the quasi-english one to at least make some kind of connection.

Now you may say that this is pointless, but I think it is important to at least try and see whether or not it works.

Any thoughts.

So, are you into labels?

2010-08-18T02:00:00.001-04:00

Surely you have heard the phrases, "I'm not into labels" or "I don't want to be labeled". It is a very common thing to say nowadays, and represents an overall apathy to philosophical matters (or whatever subject the phrase comes up in). I first want to say that I completely respect these people, since most of them are really just trying to avoid a fight about something that they don't care about it. But I wanted to discuss the concept of labels within society, and maybe tease out why some people use them, what they are for, and whether they should be used at all.

A Rose By Any Other Label...

First of all, let's get down to the basic question: what is a label? Essentially 'label' is nothing more than another word for 'name'. The only real difference is the term 'label' forms a word picture of some kind of visual "name-tag" being placed upon the thing named. It is clear that no one is really against naming things, but yet they are against labeling. This is almost contradictory.

Almost. What people are really against is having a name forced upon them that they don't want, and that is the key. Naming/labelling is incredibly important, and innate to the nature of man, but it also a very powerful thing.

Consider Adam. Adam's first role within the garden was to name everything that was around him. Why? I mean, didn't God have name for these things? It is important to recognize that within the Hebrew thought, the concept of naming something was exerting your power over it. By naming it, you brought it under your dominion: you define it. Thus by having Adam name everything, God was giving Adam dominion over the Earth.

Though this concept isn't quite as conscience within the minds of our culture, it is still true, and we know it on an intuitive level. When someone else applies a label to us, they are, to some degree, exerting some kind of control over us. They are defining us. That's not always comfortable (especially if we don't like or don't identify with the label being applied). Additionally, the person themselves are also somewhat aware of it, for those that insist on a label for you are usually people who are attempting to categorize you to assess how they are supposed to interact with you (often in terms of "friend or foe"). Let's face it, labels of the basic building blocks of organization, and many people want or need to organize the people they know.

This brings up a second word picture that the term 'label' offers. There is the one picture, mentioned above, of the name-tag that defines me, but the far more disturbing image is the box label. I'm much more comfortable with the name-tag that is there to help distinguish me from others, but not so much with being put in a box with a bunch of people I don't like so I can be filed away, perhaps even discarded.

With all of this, it is quite easy to see why people don't like to be labeled.

So, Labels Are Bad?

Not at all! Labels are a necessary part of human interaction! Like I said above, labeling serves very important functions.

First it defines a thing. It is not wrong for things to be defined. Can you imagine what conversation would be like if we didn't have names for things? Imagine if every time I wanted to refer to John, I would have to describe him because he didn't have a name. Indeed, if we had no names at all, imagining trying to describe him without such words as 'hair', 'shirt', 'male', 'head', 'eyes', and even 'age'. Likewise imagine political conversations if we had no names for positions, and a person would have to describe their entire political platform at the beginning of every conversation. I mean we could do it, but who would want to! If you think that I am wrong, just look at the words that are usually used to replace labels (given that the person is trying to abandon "labeling").

Second it organizes things. As much as no one wants to be organized, it is important for one to organize their social life. I want to know who my friends are. I want to know who my family is. I want to be able to quickly identify who is going to support me in a discussion on politics or theology. This is incredibly helpful, and makes life, well, livable.

Third it works as a short-hand. This is sort of already implied with what I said above, but it is important to note separately. It is often helpful within a conversation though to define a concept and then label it for further reference. For those who frequent this site, I often reference the Machine Gun Hermeneutic. This is a term that I invented, but whenever I refer to it, I link to the first article I wrote on it. The truth is I wrote that article for the purpose of defining a label that I was intending to use. That is the value of labeling.

Label Libel

The real problem is in the mismanagement of labels. Many labels in our society are misused, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malevolence.

Here's an example from a movie. Have you ever seen Hot Fuzz? Hysterical movie, though I would not recommend it to those who are sensitive (though I do recommend it to everyone else). There is one scene where the main character is being asked whether he believes in God. He says no. So the questioner (a priest unfortunately) says, "So you're an atheist?" He says that it more that he isn't certain about the concept of God, to which which the questioner responds, "Ah, you're an agnostic then." It is true that any belief that is unsure about the existence of God can be called an agnostic belief, but technically (as I understand), one is "an agnostic" if they assert that the existence of God cannot be known. However, the term is often used to label those who are simply unsure, as if they actually fell on the spectrum or something.

Another example is a label I take on myself: Arminian. The concept of Arminianism is that God extends his grace to all, and enables all to come to Him, but that only a few respond to this grace (this is a gross oversimplification, but I discuss it in more detail elsewhere). However, many attempt to define Arminianism as "salvation by works" or "man-centered" or "anything that believes in free-will" even though these are fallacious definitions. Indeed, many attach other labels which are completely foreign to the stance.

But it is incredibly important that we don't try to abandon labels or avoid them. Instead we need to own and defend them.

You see, the real problem is not that you are being labeled, but that other people are the ones doing it. When you label or name something, you are exerting power over it. Therefore the problem is other people trying to have power over you. The solution is not to not be labeled (since they label you anyway), but that instead you control which labels are attached to you.

For instance, I don't see myself as a conservative (politically speaking). That is not a label that I attach to myself. However, I do use the labels federalist and capitalist, and if someone calls me conservative, I can correct by using the terms that I define myself as. Yes, I am on the right side of politics, but not for the same reasons as many, and thus I don't really belong in the same category. On the other hand, I don't mind the label "right-winged" for that implies a spectrum rather than a political philosophy, and that is the side of the spectrum I'm on.

Therefore, to answer the question that I labeled this post with: Yes, I am into labels, and I hope that you will be to. Let us just take the time to understand and appropriately choose the labels we use.

The Transcendental Argument and Thoughts

2010-08-09T04:46:00.000-04:00

The Transcendental Argument

I've written on this topic before. The Transcendental Argument is an argument for the existence of God, though I would say that it is really more an argument against materialism. Materialism is a basic tenant of atheism, and if you dispose of materialism, atheism cannot stand. Thus its opposite, theism, must be true.

Before one can understand how the argument works, one first needs to understand what materialism is. Simply put, it is the belief that material (matter and energy) is all there as, and anything else doesn't really exist, but is merely an illusion in our minds. This has significant ramifications, for not only does it reject the belief in God, or in souls and spirits, but it also rejects the reality of morality, thoughts and even life. Life, after all, is merely a physical phenomenon, and thoughts are just electrical impulses in your brain. This is the philosophy of materialism.

According to the Transcendental Argument, there are things which we can prove exist which transcend material (hence the name). Most of the time, when this argument is used, the transcendental that is used is morality. However, proving the existence of objective morality is difficult (though I would say possible) and therefore this isn't always the best way to present the argument (sometimes it is though, because you can really engage the emotions of people).

Another one used is logic. Atheists love logic. Indeed, one may say that they worship logic and reason (Oh my science!). Because of this, using logic is a very good method of dismantling atheism in particular, since Atheism is so dependant upon claiming to be "the most logical stance".

However, I think a truly powerful transcendental to use, if all you intend to do is to deconstruct materialism, is thinking.

The Absolute Existence of Human Thoughts

As I stated before, materialism claims that material is all there is (hence the name). A necessary corollary to this is that our thoughts and consciousness are merely illusions: they are only electrical impulses in the brain. However, I would argue that an honest examination of human history and society demonstrates that this philosophy cannot hold water.

Question: have you ever heard of someone being run over by a unicorn? Of course not, because unicorns don't exist. This is the basic premise of my argument: Things which don't exist cannot affect things which do exist. Now I am in agreement with materialism that material exists. However, if materialism is to be true, then all events in human history can be explained purely from a physical level, without referencing people's ideas, philosophies, and beliefs.

However, this cannot be done. We can come up with some very simple examples like the notion of the atomic bomb started with an idea. It does not stand that the physical components of the human body and some electrical impulses are sufficient to explain the ability to break apart subatomic forces.

We can come up with something, though, which is a little more provable. I think the best example is racial segregation. Why is it that this group of humans (thought of in terms of physical bodies according to materialism) are in different physical conditions that this other group of humans? The true answer to this is racial prejudice. But racial prejudice is an idea. However, this idea must exist because it has physical consequence.

Indeed, any concept of a choice based off of a belief falls into this same category. Though my decision to have one piece of pie over another can be attributed to chemical impulses, my decision to place one DVD into a DVD player over another cannot.

OK, So Here's the Argument

OK, so here's the arguemnt:

P1: Material is real
P2: If materialism is true, then thoughts are not real
P3: Things which are not real cannot affect things that are real
P4: Thoughts affect material things.
C1: Thoughts are real (P1, P3, P4)
C2: Materialism is false (P2, C1)
QED

Parsimonious: A word apologists should know

2010-08-04T01:18:00.004-04:00

I am a lover of words: a logophile if you will. And there is no greater joy that I have than coming across a new useful word. Now, not every new word is useful. For instance, I recently learned the world 'ululation' which means 'howl'. Well, we have another word for that: 'howl'. However, then there are words like 'obfuscation': to confuse people using unusual words or lofty sentence structure. That is a useful word (and ironic) since you would often have to use several words to describe that same concept.

This is also why I love English. We have a word for everything: 'everything'. OK, kidding aside, the real power of English is in its vocabulary. We do have an incredibly diverse and robust vocabulary with English, if only the population would use it.

Parsimonious

OK, so I recently read an essay at William Laine Craig's site, and in it, it used the term parsimonious. It also defined it, kindly enough. Essentially, it means "being favored by way of Occam's Razor". Indeed, Craig's uses the term "principle of parsimony" as another name for Occam's Razor. For those of you that aren't apologists, Occam's Razor states that when considering two possible theories, and all other things being equal, one should prefer the simpler theory.

For those of you who are apologists, theologians, philosophers, or scientists, I am sure that you have run into the same situation as I, where you wished to discuss the attribution of Occam's Razor within a particular argument, and were forced to do great violence to your sentence in order to fit in the full phrase "in accordance to Occam's Razor". Now you don't have to!

Indeed, with the gift of the word "parsimonious" you now have a way to refer to Occam's Razor in any grammatical situation: noun (parsimony), adjective (parsimonious), adverb (parsimoniously), antinym (unparsimonious), or, if you are really crazy and enjoy making new words through derivation, verb (parsimonize).

So to all you apologists out there: enjoy the gift.

An Exercise in Evangelistic Tact

2010-07-26T05:52:00.003-04:00

I received this as a comment on my "Road Rage" post a while back. I didn't publish it because I thought it was cheesy, and I have a policy about comments needing to apply to the post they are connected to and a policy about not lecturing. Considering that this on from a post about Road Rage, it clearly was not on topic, and it is clearly lecturing.

But I did decide to keep it because I wanted to do a post critiquing it. it is a wonderful example of poor tract evangelism, and I wanted to share it with you guys. I didn't include the name since I'm going to give a negative critique.

If you died today, are you 100% sure you would go to Heaven ?

The Bible says in I John 5:13, that we can KNOW we are saved eternally and
going to Heaven.

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on
the name of the Son of God." I John 5:13

1. First, you must realize that you are a sinner.

The Bible says in Romans 3:23, that everyone is a sinner.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans
3:23

2. You must realize what yours sins earn you.

The Bible tells us the penalty for our sin in the first part of Romans
6:23

"For the wages of sin is death;" Romans 6:23a

Because we sin, we earn wages just like when we earn wages for working. Our
wages for our sins is death. Because we sin, we deserve to die.

But that's not all, because we sin, we deserve to die a second death as
well ...

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death." Revelation 20:14

Because of our sins, we also deserve to die the second death: to be cast
into the Lake of Fire ( Hell ).

3. Jesus paid the price.

God wants us to go to Heaven, so He sent His only begotten Son to die for
us on the cross, so we can go to Heaven !

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

4. What must I do to be saved ?

God only asks one thing of us to be saved.

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house." Acts 16:31

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved." Romans 10:9

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."Romans
10:13

If we believe that we Jesus died for us and rose again so that we can be
saved, and we simply ask Jesus to save us, He will :)

I just wanted to make sure you knew 100% sure :D

God bless you and yours !

Problem #1: Hit and Run

The very way that this comment is made makes it very clear that this poster is simply posting this without intending to follow-up. If the person did attempt to follow-up, then they did a lousy job in opening conversation.

Which is the basic point. I understand the need for a tract to give all of the information that a person may ask since the giver of the tract won't be there for the reading of the tract. But if you are going to comment on a blog then your objective in evangelism should be opening up dialogue. Giving a page long description of the process of salvation complete with proof-texts and then claiming that you are just "making sure" is pompous, and dissuades one from having a conversation.

I mean, what did she (because it was a she) expect me to say in response? "No I'm not sure" or "Actually, I really don't care" or the more accurate in my case "Actually I completely understand and accept all that you said and you just completely wasted my time considering you could have figured this out by briefly skimming my site"? None of these are really natural responses, or represent serious dialogue.

Problem #2: The Machine Gun Hermeneutic

I have a policy on this too. Look at the way Scripture is used here. She lists particular verses, and then does nothing to interact with them. This brings up the question: who is her target here?

Let's say I am already a Christian. Then there is no purpose for her even giving me this message, and I am probably already familiar with these verses.

OK, let's say I am not a Christian. Then why would I care what the Scripture says? What is the point of quoting it? I mean, I quote Scripture when I talk to non-Christians as a source for what I believe, but not as an authority as to why they should believe the same as I do. The Bible belongs to the Church, and is an authority for the Church. It isn't to those outside of it, and we shouldn't be surprised by that.

OK, let's say that I am a false Christian (to be honest, that is what I am assuming she is "making sure of"). Again, I probably would be familiar with these verses, and there is little here that would point out where I fall short in the faith.

In other words, regardless of where I am coming from, her presentation would not convince me.

Problem #3: Disingenuous

I've alluded to this several times already, but the cheeky "I just wanted to make sure you were 100% sure" is really insulting. This is so insincere. If she wanted to make sure, then she would have asked me questions, not given me a lecture. Or she at least would have read more of my posts, and found out what I claim to believe, and have written in response to that (I even have a section listing all of my beliefs and a link to it at the top of my blog). Even if she did give me this out of a desire to "make sure", it is quite evident that she doesn't really care about me.

Now it would be wrong of me to say what she was thinking. My imagination would assume the worse because I am insulted, but probably her motivations are far more innocent than I would imagine. But there is nothing more annoying than claiming that they are concerned about you, while their actions make it seem like you are just another stamp on the side of their plane.

Conclusion

Take the time to think about what you are doing when you are evangelizing. Think in terms of who you are trying to reach, and what medium you are using.

When handing out tracts, you have to be this general: it is a natural aspect of the medium, and that is OK. But even then you have to think about target audience, and how that group of people will respond to your words.

If you are street evangelizing, you need to be focused on emotion rather than logic. You need to get people to want to listen to you, rather than simply being correct in what you have to say.

But more to the point, blogs give you an ability to be precise in your evangelism that you not only can take advantage of, but will be expected to. If someone has a blog, they are a person that wants to have their thoughts heard. Thus, if you want to reach someone on a blog, you first need to impress them with how familiar you are with their writing. If you are unwilling to do the work to do this, then you shouldn't say anything at all.

And, in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Pelagianism: A Monergist Model of Redemption

2010-07-20T23:21:00.003-04:00

"Pelagianism? Monergist? Martin, I think you need to recheck your definitions."

No it's true! For those that read most internet Calvinist literature, the word 'monergism' is understood to be synonymous with determinism. However, the term specificly means that only one party's actions (energy) matters within the processes of redemption and sanctification. The process involves two parties: God and the human. Therefore, monergism is any belief system that views either party as the only effective actor within the process, whether it be God (Calvinism/Augustinianism) or the human (Pelagianism).

Therefore, it strikes me as odd that many Calvinists seem to celebrate monergism as if the concept alone justifies the superiority of Calvinism. The truth of the matter is, it seems to me that most Calvinists simply think monergisticly. Many believe that it must be God or humanity, and if we are not saying God, that that amounts to saying that it is humanity. That just isn't true.

Here is the truth of the matter:

Pelagianism: Monergistic Believes that the human initiates and completes the process of redemption and sanctification by living the kind of life modeled by Christ.
Semipelagianism: Synergistic Believes that the human initiates the process of redemption, but it is completed through the assistance of God and Christ's redemptive sacrifice
Semiaugustianism (Arminianism): Synergistic Believes that God initiates the process of redemption, and completes it within those humans that respond to His initiatial promptings.
Augustinianism (Calvinism): Monergistic Beleives that God initiates and completes the process of redemption and sanctification of a few select persons.

Those that celebrate 'Monergism' and condemn 'Synergism' do so without fully understanding the terms. Both Pelagianism (a monergist theology) and Semipelagianism (a synergist theology) are just as heretical, and both Augustianism (a monergist theology) and Semiaugustinianism (a synergist theology) fall comfortably within the boundries of orthodoxy.

See the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church to collaborate definitions of terms

Ecotheology

2010-07-11T15:15:00.001-04:00

Ok, there are tons of 'ologies' out there, including theological terms. In Christianity we study:

Angelology- study of Angels
Anthropology- study of humanity's nature
Christology- Study of Christ's nature
Cosmology- Study of the the origin of the cosmos/ Creation
Demonology- Study of Satan and his forces
Ecclesiology- study of the church
Epistemology- Study of knowledge and understanding
Eschatology- study of the life after death and the end of the world
Ontology- study of existence
Pneumatology- study of the Spirit
Sacramentology- study of the sacraments/ordinances
Soteriology- study of salvation
Theology- study of God

There are also many branches of Christian study that do not end with '-ology', such as:

Ethics- study of right living (moral or practical)
Hermeneutics- study of interpreting a text/Scripture
History- study of past events (Also Archeology)
Liturgy- Study of public worship (Also liturgiology)
Metaphystics- study of supernatural forces
Pastoral theology- study of the role of the pastor
Philosophy- Systematic study of reality
Science-Systematic study of tangible reality
Theodicy- Study of the existence of evil given a just God

Though this list is not exhaustive, I would consider these to be the major branches of Christian study.

However, there is one branch of Christian study which I believe is a major aspect of Christian understanding that, as far as I am aware, has no name. Therefore, I gave it a name: ecotheology.

What is Ecotheology

The prefix 'eco-' is used to reference environment, usually in terms of Nature, but not necessarily. 'Theology' is of course the study of God. Therefore, what I mean by 'Ecotheology' is the study of the interactions between a faith community or religious perspective with its cultural environment.

Interestingly enough, this area of theology has already had a lot of development within Christianity. The most notable ecotheological movement would be Emergent Church movement which is defined by it "discussion" ecotheological issues. However, Fundamentalism and the Amish would also be groups which are defined by an ecotheological stance (In that they both view that interactions between the faith community and the cultural environment should be limited, or non-existent). Again Liberalism is also a position based off of an ecotheological stance (That the faith community should adapt and accommodate to the ambient culture's academy). Thus I am not proposing that we create a new area of theology inquiry, but that we should identify as a legitimate category of Christian study that already exists.

Christian Ecotheology

Within Christianity, we conveniently have a base question from which we can base our study: "how can we be in the world and not of the world?" Any attempt to answer or consider this question is Christian ecotheology.

Therefore, Christian ecotheology starts with two basic assumptions: A) That we (the Church) are something distinct and other within our culture and B) that we do belong where we are. Thus we can see that Christian ecotheology is intimately related to ecclesiology (The study of the Church). This shouldn't be surprising since in the definition I gave ["the study of the interactions between a faith community or religious perspective with its cultural environment"], the faith community mentioned there would be the church within Christianity.

However, I would argue that ecotheology is indeed something entirely distinct from ecclesiology since it is a study of interactions rather than a study of nature. It would be similar to the distinction between Christology (the study of who Christ is) and soteriology (the study of what Christ accomplished).

Indeed, ecotheology is intimately concerned with ethics: How are we to maintain our otherness, and yet still fulfill our purpose in being within this culture? This is merely a rephrasing of the first question, and yet shows that this has as much to do with personal ethics as it does with the nature of the Church. It is balancing holiness with mission, placing evangelism itself firmly within ecotheology's purview. However, it is also concerned with how to interact with educational institutions, mass media, and political structures.

However, it is not limited to ethics, for there is the ultimate question of how the church as a whole interacts with the world as a whole. How are we portrayed? How much of that portrayal is our fault? What can we do to improve that image? Should we do something to improve it? How well do we understand the needs of our culture? Are we reaching out to it the right way? These are major questions, and are worthy of direct and systematic study.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

Ephesians 2:14; A Devotional

2010-07-10T05:26:00.000-04:00

For He is our peace, having made both into one and having broken down¹ that wall² which divides us³, that hostility by His flesh.

Is there a greater verse to demonstrate the notion of how corporate election works? God has created for Himself a people out of the seed of Abraham. It is this people that He has choosen, and it is through this people that He works.

But through the power of the blood of Jesus Christ His Son, that distinction between the seed of Abraham and the rest of the seed of Adam is broken down. Now all who are in Christ are one and are part of the same people: the people of Christ. When we say we are Christians, we are saying that we are part of the soveriegn government of the King of Kings: the Lord Christ who reigns over all the other lords. That is now our nationality; that is our alligance.

Therefore, any other distinction that we may recognize is now moot. Let us not ostrocize another for petty things, like race or nation or tribe or denomination. We are now one people under Christ. These are dividing walls which the passage equates with hostility.

So let us work with one another in harmony and strength. It is only when we all submit to the King and work together as a people that we will see the kingdom of God on this earth.

Translation notes
1 The verb here is 'luo' which means 'to loose' or 'to free' or 'break apart'.

2 'Mesotoixhon' is a combination of two words: 'mesos' meaning 'middle' and 'toichas' meaning wall. Thus, it is a wall in the middle of a room., probably for the purpose of separating the two sections of a room. We have simular walls today, often called partitions. I chose to just call it a wall since calling it a partition would feel redundant withthe rest of the sentence. Also translating it as 'middle wall' isn't really consistant with the language. I don't believe in making up a term in English to represent a standard term in the mother language. That's not good translation IMO.

3 The Greek is 'fragmos' or 'fence'. Thus the greek would have literally read "The partition of the fence". That sounded clunkier than a late 90s Ford. I toyed with the idea of "Wall of division", but that still isn't really English. So I ended up going with a dynamic equivalance on this one.

Update

2010-07-03T14:01:00.002-04:00

Ok, I haven't made any posts in a while, and I finally have a opportunity to explain way. As of right now, whenever I go to edit a post on here, my entire browser just goes blank. Just white. Yeah, it's that annoying.

So I have had no capacity to actually make posts from home. Furthermore, my job had no computer for me to use, and my best friend's computer, and his room-mate's computer, both crashed, and I just haven't had the time to go to the library.

A quick update though is that I now have a new job! I've been job searching for about 3 years now, only working at Burger King. I've been mostly looking for a pastoral position, but I was unable to really find anything that would work. However, I just got a job as a resident counselor for Christian Heritage Services. This means that I am working assisting those with developmental disabilities. In my case, I am working with those who also have aging disorders (dimentia, etc...).

So far it's been fun, and I have access to a computer :). I hope to eventually figure out what's wrong with my home computer, but I only have a problem with blogger, so we'll see.

Road Rage

2010-04-26T22:57:00.005-04:00

I've been thinking about the cause of road rage recently. Everyone knows that it happens, but why? Why do we get more upset on the road than we do other places? I think I know the answer: poor communication.

When I was a child, I had a severe stutter, as well as some other speech problems. You wouldn't notice them now unless I pointed them out to you, but back then I had difficulty even getting a sentence out. On top of that, I was an extrovert with a lot to say. However, I was constantly ignored or talked over. According to my mother (since this was before I could remember) the level of frustration from not being able to communicate caused me to get violent.

I think the same thing is happening in cars. Think about our tools of communication: a horn, turning signals, hazard lights, high-beams, and reckless driving. That's really it. Turning signals are overly specific to be useful and horns are too ambiguous to really communicate anything other than frustration.

Here's an example from my life. There is a road here that is 40 mph until a certain point, and then it increases to 55 mph for a significant distance, and has one lane. I would say about 1 out of 10 cars fail to notice that the speed changes, and there is only one marker, so if they miss it, they never correct it. Now I could flash my lights but that tells them really nothing. I can beep my horn or tailgate, but that only says that I want to go faster. That doesn't tell them that they are going 15 mph under the speed limit. I'm at a loss for communication. What do I do? What can I do?

Nothing, and that's angering.

One thing that really used to frustrate me was tail-gaters, because there was nothing I could do about it. What I started to do was simply slow down until they passed me (not the most Christian thing to do). One time I did this, and the person ended up being a cop in a civilian car (oops). He came over and asked me why I slowed down. I told him the truth. He claimed he wasn't (oook) and suggested that next time I put my four-ways on. I've been doing that ever since and interestingly it works. Most people seem to figure out pretty quickly that my issue is that they are tail-gating. And guess what, it doesn't bug me anymore.

There is something frustrating about be trapped in a box moving at dangerous speeds surrounded by people who you cannot communicate with, especially if they do something dangerous which threatens your life. Go figure. And the more often you are unable to communicate, the more it builds up to the point where it begins to carry over to the next day, and the next, and the next.

I wonder if there was something more we could do to communicate on the road. Something more dynamic. I'm positive that it would decrease road rage. It may also decrease cell phone drivers, though I doubt by much. Anyway, just some thoughts.

Thoughts on John 6

2010-04-05T09:08:00.002-04:00

Well, I'm still working on that "Why I am an Arminian" series that I started like 2 years ago. It's taking awhile because I'm currently going through relevant passages within the debate, and carefully exegeting each one, as I have time. The last Calvinist one that I am doing also happens to be the one that I have looked at the least, which is John 6. I've recently had a break through with this text, and I wanted to share it.

Previous Readings

Up until this point, whenever I have come to John 6 I've focused on the "bread of life" aspects of the text and have merely passed over the more Calvinist sounding verses. There are two reasons for this. First of all, the bread of life passages mean more to me. The second is that bread of life passages are what the section is really about, and Calvinist texts are really passing statements that Jesus made, so I never really noticed them.

Whenever Calvinists have pointed to these texts, it has always been in isolation, so I could see their point. However, in isolation, I could easily read prevenient grace into the passages as well, so I have never found them convincing.

In summary, up until this point I have found these texts to be vague semblances of Calvinist ideas that are distracting from the grander context of John 6 when focused upon.

Personal Exegesis

Initial Problems

Due to the way that I do exegesis, my first questions of the text was "What is the overall point of this passage? Why is Jesus having this conversation? However does this story fit into the overall narrative of John?" (Actually the overall narrative means even more in John than it does in the other gospels since John flows more than the other gospels.) What I realized was interesting.

The basic point of the passage is to compare the faithlessness of the Jews in the crowd to the faithfulness of the disciples. Basically the difference is that the disciples receive the "Bread of Life" from the Father, while the others do not.

To be honest, this left me in a pickle as far my previous understanding of verse 44. I had always understood this to simply be prevenient grace, but it is clear, from context, that this verse is dealing with one of the very many distinctions between the disciples and the other Jews. Thus, this could not be prevenient grace, since prevenient grace is extended to all.

But I also didn't find Calvinism here either. There was nothing in the text that implied regeneration before faith, nor was there anything that identified the drawing as irresistible. Furthermore, there were no text that laid the basis of how this drawing works, or indeed what this drawing actually is. It is merely a passing statement during Jesus' greater point, which is criticizing the people for not listening. Indeed, I find it rather odd for Jesus to be rebuking them for not listening when they are not being drawn to listen to begin with. That's like rebuking a deaf person for not listening.

Thus I had a new question: What did this drawing mean?

I also had a second. This whole idea of those being given to Christ from verse 37 also made me wonder. Again, I didn't think Calvinism. No where does John say that these which are given to Jesus were selected unconditionally. Indeed, nothing is said about the selection process at all! All it says is that there are some given to Jesus.

Clearly my former thoughts did not hold up to the context, yet I found that though Calvinism would answer these questions neatly, the text did not imply Calvinism itself, thus defeating it as being a proof-text). After all, if this is a proof-text of Calvinism, then one should be able to extract Calvinism from this. But you can't, so it's not. Indeed, the best one could say about it is that it is an obscure text that is hard to understand, and Calvinism is an adequate theory to explain it.

But what did this mean? Does it means that no one is saved unless the Father hands them over to Jesus? And by what manner does the Father decide which ones to give Jesus? And what is the drawing that the text is speaking of?

An Answer from Prayer

While thinking all of this over a couple of days, I suddenly remembered that the language of those being given to Christ was used in His high priestly prayer in John 17. So I turned there to see if I can figure some of this out.

Reading the whole prayer straight through it became very clear to me was that Jesus was contrasting those who has been given to Him from those that were to be saved later on (Vs 20). In other words, you and I are not those 'given to Him'. Those given to Him were the disciples. Therefore, being given to Jesus is not the normative operation of salvation, but something specific that was happening during Jesus' earthly ministry.

It is also important from verse 12 that Judas is one of the ones that was given to Jesus. Therefore, although being given to Jesus has clear soteriological implications because of John 6, it cannot be the same thing as unconditional election leading to absolute perseverance, as Calvinists claim it means.

Finding the Brown and White Picture

And no, I do not mean sepia. I was listening to the first debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown on Dr. White's podcast. Dr. White referenced John 6 as one of the best Calvinist prooftexts, though his exegesis had some serious problems (mostly that they contradict what I have stated earlier in this post).

The central problem that I had with what Dr. White said though was that he claimed that going to other passages in John (not other passages in the Bible, but other passages in the same book!!!) was bad exegesis. What?! I'm sorry, but that's is really really foolish, and I don't say that to be cruel or insulting, because I do respect him, but that is really foolish. I understand that it is poor exegesis to break down Exodus with Romans in mind because Moses did not have Romans in mind when Exodus was being written. But the book of John is a cohesive book! John absolutley had John 12 and 17 in mind when he wrote John 6 (as did Holy Spirit) and it is not only reasonable, but also proper to assume that language he used in one part of his book would mean the same thing if used somewhere else in his book. Has Dr. White never heard of foreshadowing? Has he never watched a movie or read a book where something was introduced and then explained later? It just baffles me how inane that comment is, especially since it is central to interpreting John 6 properly since 6 gives very little to no context to understand what the term "given to" actually means.

Moving beyond that, what Dr. Brown said brought a lot of what I was aready thinking into a cohesive thought. If we are to understand that there exists those in Israel who already belonged to God, than it is logical to understand this passage as saying that the Father gave those who belonged to Him to Jesus at this time in His ministry. Furthermore, the entire context of the passage also begins to make sense. Like I said early on Jesus is clearly differentiating between those that follow Him and those that don't. But when we recognize that there exists those that already belong to God before the coming of Christ, then we recognize that the differentiation is that the disciples were part of the true remnant of Israel, while these were not.

This brings a lot of other passages to light too. For instance, those that belong to me recognize my voice, being the good shepherd. When we understand this as pointing to the Jewish community, we can see that what is going on is that Jesus is saying "you are not following me because you do not follow my Father." This has nothing to do with the unconditionally of election, but with unity of the Father and the Son, and how the Son is in perfect harmony with the Father's purpose and people. Those who are truly a part of the Father's people will recognize the Father in Christ.

Indeed, this also makes Peter's statement all the stronger. After Jesus gives this speech in John six, He turns to the disciples and says "Will you leave also." Peter replies, "where else shall we go? You have the answers to eternal life." You see? Peter saw the Father in Jesus and that is why Peter followed Him. And he saw the Father in Jesus because he knew the Father. The crowd did not see the Father in Jesus, because they did not know the Father, and so rejected Jesus simply because He confused them. The disciples went to Him to seek deeper understanding.

Drawing Conclusions

As for conclusions on what 'drawing' means, I'm having a bit more difficulty with that. There are two other instances where John uses it in this book. One is John 12:32, where Jesus says that He will draw all to Himself (Not all men. Not all kinds of men. Just all) . The other is in John 21 where the disciples draw the fish up from the water. Ironically it was this second one that brought me some insight.

But first, let us compare draw in John 6 with John 12. First, the scope of the drawing in John 6 is particular: it only applies to those who were given to Christ by the Father. Second the scope of John 12 is universal: it uses the word all. Now, does all refer to every person? Maybe, maybe not. There is little context to answer that absolutely. Third, the context of John 6 is referring to Christ being in possession of those of whom He is drawing, yet the context of John 12 is the cross. Thus we must conclude that these two passages are not referring to the same thing.

Therefore, any interpretation that labels both of these things as prevenient grace does not take into account the particularity of John 6, and any interpretation that labels both of these as regenerative grace does not take heed of the scope of John 12. However, we must assume that John is using the term 'draw' in a similar fashion. So even though these two texts do not refer to the same action, they do refer to a similar kind of action.

If we consider the idea of drawing referring the same kind of activity as the disciples drawing up fish with a net, then we can see how this can work. In the case of John 12, it is by the means of the cross that Christ draws all to Himself for judgment. If you note the context of John 12, Christ is talking about taking His rightful place as ruler of the world, by disposing Satan, and bringing the world to judgment. If we think of the meaning of this in terms of what this means for humankind, it would mean that Christ is subjecting all under His authority. Thus, by drawing all, He is capturing all within His rulership.

We bring this to John 6, Jesus is talking about being given the remnant of the people of Israel. Thus, in the last day, those who have been given to Him, He will take up with Him to glory. Thus, we have a picture of drawing: bringing them up.

What I do not see here is the idea of regeneration, which is ultimately what Calvinists argue. ~~In John 6 I see drawing referring to a rapture.~~ In John 6, I see drawing referring to the Father drawing them into His possession before giving them to Christ. The resistibly of this isn't mentioned at all.

This said, though I am rather confident that I am right regarding John 6 on this issue, I still have some doubts as to whether I am understanding John 12 appropriately.

Corporate Election and Baseball

2010-03-29T07:45:00.001-04:00

I finally got an opportunity to listen to Dr. White and Dr. Brown's most recent debate. Very good and both of their parts. Naturally I think that Dr. Brown did much better, but I also agreed with his exegesis (as well as his style of exegesis) and I'm sure that played a big part of that. What frustrated me was the caricatures that White kept putting forth.

One of the interesting ones was the "impersonal nebulous group". He claims that if one chooses a group it is impersonal, and that group lacks real world definition.

Now I really like baseball. The crack of the bat, the sound of the parks, the smell of the grass, the feel of the ball in your hand, the drama of the pitcher and batter; it's great. Additionally, I am a Yankee fan. My father grew up in Staten Island, and I fell in love with baseball watching with my father. So I love the Yankees.

Now here's a question: is this not a corporate election? My selection of the Yankees is a corporate one, not an individual one. It is also not impersonal, because I care a great deal about Petite, Jeter, Posada, etc... Indeed, I still loved Petite when he went down to Texas, but my affection for him as a ball player is greater when he is wearing those pinstripes. And it is not like the Yankees is a nebulous group. Sure, some members come, some members go, but the group is a tangible existing thing in of itself. Finally, White criticized Dr. Brown's corporate view in Ephesians because of the use of personal pronouns. Yet most fans I know refer to their team using such terms. "We swept Chicago." "We're going to the World Series." "Well, we'll do better next year." I'm sorry, but Dr. White has simply not thought out this criticism at all.

It is like I have always said about Dr. White: he is an excellent apologist because he has a thorough understanding of his position, but he is a terrible polemicist because he never seems to comprehend what he is arguing against.

Change to comment moderation

2010-03-19T09:17:00.002-04:00

I've always tried to keep commenting as free on here as possible because I want to encourage conversation. For that reason, I haven't moderated the first 10 days after a post, and I only moderate after that so that I can see if a person leaves a comment on my dashboard.

However, lately I've been getting viral comments with links to inappropriate sites (I don't believe I need to say more). It has happened three times now, and that is simply intolerable. For that reason, I've changed the comment moderation to always being on to protect the site from such things. I do apologize since you guys have always been quite civil in your comments here.

Thank you for understanding.

Ephesians 2:13; A Devotional

2010-03-13T10:00:00.001-05:00

But now, in Christ Jesus, you, being once distant¹, have become² close³ by Christ's blood.

It is important to remember that Paul's primary concern in the book of Ephesians is dealing with the Gentile believers in relation to the Jews. Often we become so concerned with this verse or that verse that we forget Paul's greater discussion.

The big question when considering this verse is "what were we far away from"? The answer is in the last verse: we were far away from God and His covenant people. The language is verse 12 is not merely talking about separation from God, but also separation from Israel. To Paul, these are two sides of the same coin. To be separate from God's people is to be separate from God's promises, and thus from God Himself.

But the turning point is Christ. Through Christ, we, the Gentiles, have been made citizens of God's people. To am not talking about replacement theology here, where the Church has replaced Israel. I mean that we have become part of Israel through the blood of Jesus Christ. The redemption that was wrought through Christ's atonement has given us access to the promises of Abraham.

Remember that we do not have a right to salvation. We have not merited it, nor do we have some claim to it by birthright. Indeed, as Gentiles, we don't even have the same claims that the ancient Jews had. Do not take it for granted.

It is a gift! A great gift: undeserved and unasked for, yet here! We need to be focused in life on the gratitude we have to Jesus for what He has done for us. Think that out this week, and relish the joy of being close to God.

Translation notes
(To be completed later)
1

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

2010-03-09T14:11:00.002-05:00

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Arminian and Calvinist debate is the amount of misunderstanding that goes on about the two positions. We have found that caricatures of both sides seem to be more common than honest descriptions. SEA (The Society of Evangelical Arminians) has been devoted to bring clarity as to what defines the Arminian position and promoting the position while remaining respectful to those that disagree.

We have just set up a new primary link that gives a detailed comparison between the Arminian and Calvinist sides. You will find it under An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism and the TULIP of Calvinism

This outline is intended to be both an introduction to the debate for those who are new to it, a correction to those who have a misunderstanding of one side or the other, and as a resource for those trying to explain it to others (there are lots of internal links for this purpose). We present the two sides using two acronym: TULIP for Calvinism, and FACTS for Arminianism (after all, we prefer facts to flowers ;-D) . Though individual opinions may differ from the outline at times, we believe that it fairly describes the general stances of either side.

For those interested, there will be a full right up for the FACTS acronym coming in the summer.

Ephesians 2:11-12; A Devotional

2010-02-27T11:30:00.001-05:00

Therefore, remember that at one point,¹ you -- the Gentiles in terms of flesh, the ones called "foreskin"² by those called "the circumcised", a handmade thing of flesh -- that at that time,¹ you were separate from Christ, ostracized³ from the people of Israel, and aliens in terms of the covenants of promise: having no hope and being without God⁴ in the world.

Sometimes we forget that we were the Gentiles. We were those cut off from the promises of God; aliens from the covenants made with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. It is only in the blood of Jesus Christ that we are brought near to God.

This is part of God's whole project: To redeem all of humanity through Israel. But the first stage of that was redeeming Israel, and the rest of us were set aside until Israel was ready for the Messiah to come.

We must always remember that we do not have a right to salvation and we most certainly do not deserve it. Salvation is a gift granted to us who were outside and separate from the things of God. That God had made a holy people, and then He drew us in by the powerful life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Let us sing praises to our God and Saviour, Christ Jesus!

Translation notes

1 The parenthesis here is marked out by the use of these two synonyms: 'pote' and 'keiros'. 'Pote' derives from 'pou' (meaning 'where') and 'te' (meaning essentially 'and', but usually acts as a kind of modifier), meaning "at one time" or "once upon a time", referring to a past state or a past event. It does not seem to refer to the past in general though. 'Keiros' means 'time', though it is distinct from the word 'chronos'. 'Chronos' refers to time in general but 'keiros' refers to a specific moment in time, which would make it simular to 'moment' or 'period' or 'instant'.

In this case, 'keiros' refers back to 'pote', bringing the reader back to the beginning of the sentence, giving the passage the feel that the parenthesis interrupted Paul thought to the point that he had to start his thought again. I emphasize this synonymia by repeating the subject 'you'.

2 I found it interesting that the term used here 'akrobustia' doesn't mean 'uncircumcised', as it is commonly translated, but 'foreskin'. Quite frankly, I think this makes the term more insulting, and probably represents a mocking name that the Jews used for the Gentiles. I think translating it as 'uncircumcised' makes the whole passage seem clunkier, and is unnecessarily creates a rhetorical parallel between the two terms.

3 'Apellotriomenoi' literally means "to make another/differnent" or simply 'to alienate'. I felt that ostracize as an appropriate term.

4 'Atheoi' is actually one word, meaning "without God".

A Divine Moment

2010-02-25T23:51:00.002-05:00

What kind of faith is Christianity? Is it experiential? Many of thought so. Is it intellectual? Again, many have considered it so. The answer is of course neither and both. Christianity is primarily relational. We understand God in how we relate to Him, and the church is functional only in terms of is communal unity.

Relationships have their experiential nature. I'm writing this today because this evening I had one of those truly defining experiential moments. I've had others, but I thought this one was worth sharing, especially considering how theological it was.

I've been reading a book called Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be (which I highly recommend) and in it, it was discussing the necessary aspect of complaint in Christian worship. This is something that I've felt strongly about for some time, but this sparked me to think about it with some depth. I pondered (remember, this is meant to be as close to my train of thought as possible with words):

God is God. Because of this, He is the Lord and Master of all of the cosmos and over all of creation. As such, we have no right to come before Him and complain to Him about how He is doing things.

However, because we are now in covenantal relationship with Him, which was cut through Christ, we now have an invitation to go before the throne and complain. Indeed, God requests that He does, and it is important that we do so honestly. David was honest before God; Job was honest before God; We should be honest before God, and should not hold back in case we offend His majesty.

Marriage is a covenant. When I am upset with my wife, I tell her my feelings. I am open before her, and tell her precisely what bothers me about what she did and how it affects me. I do so because I trust her not to throw it back in my face, and because ultimately my desire is reconciliation with her. This can only happen is I openly and honestly express my perspective and reaction to what she has done. With that comes correction and restitution.

With God, to not be honest and to hold back is not to trust His response, and to prefer obedience to proper relationship. Being open doesn't mean that you believe that what you are saying is correct, but that you recognize that this is the perspective that you have, and it needs to be dealt with, and that the only way to deal with it is to go to the source, submit it, and trust that He will value your honesty and reconcile with you. It is a supreme trust.

And how good of a God He is that He is faithful to that trust! That if we come to him complaining, He'll listen and come and reconcile. He may speak from a whirlwind, or He may speak in a still small voice, but He'll come.

God loves me. He really loves me. That love is not simply an emotion, but it motivates action. He pursues me. Yes He reigns, but He really cares about me.

God, You're love is real, and true...

At this point, my thoughts really stopped being words. It was more a group of concepts sort of ramming into each, and interacting with each other: blending and merging, sort of like a conceptual kaleidoscope. I had a similar experience once contemplating the Trinity. It is like the ideas almost become pure, leaving their verbal symbols. It sounds chaotic, but when this happens my thinking is actually clearer.

The first time this conceptual kaleidoscope happened the concept of the Trinity was simply made plain to me. In this case, God's love was just before me. I could see it; feel it. All of it's parts and depths were there. It began to feel like God was holding me in His arms: not in a literal way, but definitely in a tangible way. I don't think I can describe it better than that. It was just me and Dad: and it was good. VERY GOOD. I would've been content to just stay there if Esther didn't tell me that it was dinnertime (she actually could tell something was happening with me).

I don't know if I can say much more than this. It was what it was, and I will hold it in my heart. I pray that you all may have a similar experience.

Ephesians 2:10; A Devotional

2010-02-20T09:15:00.004-05:00

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared for us to do.

The beautiful thing about this verse is how close one feels with God when thinking that He has shaped us with His own hands. Many times we wonder why God would love us so much. Well, for much of the same reason why I still have some art projects I made in 6th grade. It isn't the quality of the piece, it is its relationship with me. Likewise, it is our relationship with God that causes God to love us so.

But it is also important to remember the context. Overall Paul is comparing faith to works, where faith is the means of salvation instead of what humans would expect: works. So why does Paul take the time to celebrate good works in this verse? After all, that is precisely what he is doing.

The reason is simple. He is describing works as the goal instead of the means. Faith is the means of salvation; works are the goal. We are saved and reborn so we can do the good works of God. This recalls Genesis 1:27-28, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." When we were created, we were, in part, delegated authority here on earth to subdue it and take care of it. We were to be God's vassals; His representatives here on the Earth to keep it beautiful.

It is therefore not surprising that even now, when He restores us to righteousness and cleanliness, He also restores us to purpose. We are called to live out His decrees, and put things in order here. So we are created for good works, and recreated for good works. But we are not recreated by good works, and that is his point.

Ephesians 2:8-9; A Devotion

2010-02-14T08:55:00.005-05:00

For you see it is from grace that you have been saved through faith; not from yourself. This¹ is a gift of God, not from works so that none may boast.

Ah yes, we are all familiar with this verse. I think it is important to understand what Paul's theology is here really. It is important to note that the basic clause of the first sentence is "you have been saved through faith". Everything else in that first sentence, and even the entire above passage, relies on us understanding that this is the basic view that Paul has about the salvation process. Indeed, the fact of salvation by faith isn't even Paul's point; it is Paul's assumption.

Paul's point is that the fact that salvation is through faith instead of works is something worth celebrating. It is the fact that salvation is through faith instead of works that is a gift from God, and the cause of any boasting being void. When we remember that God has the sovereign right to decide upon what terms He is going to base salvation, and then realize that humans would expect it to be based upon works (hence every man-made religion doing so), we can then recognize how gracious it is for God to base it upon something as simplistic as faith!

And faith here doesn't simply believe mentally believing something. It is talking about utter reliance and trust on Christ. This is why it is impossible to boast about faith, because the very nature of faith is relenting our own power and abilities. It is saying, "I give up. Christ, You do it." Who can boast in that?

So therefore, this week, let us be conscious to look to God to be our strength (as we always should). Let us rely on Jesus to be our Saviour and Lord. Let us trust in the Spirit to provide our strength and support. Let us depend completely on Yahweh, and remember Him in all our ways.

Blessings.

Translation notes

1 The word 'touto', which means 'this', is neuter in the Greek. It is important to note that if it referred to the word 'faith', it would match that word in gender (which would be feminine). Because it is neuter, it would refer to the entire last clause. Therefore, it is salvation through faith that is a gift.

Distinctive vs Core Doctrine

2010-02-10T09:48:00.003-05:00

One thing that I have noticed within the Arminianism/Calvinism debate is that the concept of "Central Doctrine" is thrown around a lot, often pejoratively. The question is what is the main tenant which defines Arminianism or Calvinism? Such a question is actually quite relevant in any theological discussion, but I've seen it come up the most in A/C.

However, I think the concept can be answered in two quite distinct ways. I've differentiated these two ways of answering this by the terms 'distinctive doctrine' and 'core doctrine'.

Core Doctrine

A position's core doctrine is that belief or set of beliefs which are foundational for that position. It is the doctrine that every other doctrine within the system is based, and that idea about God, humanity, and the world that the position is attempting to protect. For instance, within Creationism, the core doctrine is the infallibility of Scripture. For Pentecostalism, it is the power of God being manifestable in the world.

It is important to note that this doctrine may not actually be distinct at all. Indeed, there are times when one's opponents hold to the exact same doctrine (as we will see in C&A). What defines a core doctrine isn't how unique it is, but how important it is.

For instance, in Calvinism one can identify two core doctrines. The first being God's sovereignty. Do Arminians believe in God's sovereignty? Of course, but that is what much of Calvinism is trying to protect. The second is monergism: only God is involved in salvation. Again, there are other versions of monergism out there, but protecting that idea is central in Calvinism.

For Arminianism, again, we can identify two. The first is God's goodness. Calvinists believe in God's goodness, but the Arminian is the one who is more intent on protecting that idea. The second would be the univerality of the atonement.

In both these cases, the second one I mention is based on the first. That's really more coincidence, but there you have it.

Distinctive Doctrine

A distinctive doctrine is that belief or set of beliefs that is unique to a particular position that allows you to identify it. They may not actually be the most important elements in the system, and may not be central to a person's spirituality at all (though sometimes they are). It is merely what differentiates it from other positions, like the Petrine authority of the Pope in Catholicism, or speaking in tongues being the initial evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit for Pentecostals.

The distinctive doctrine of Calvinism is Unconditional Election (that's right, not determinism). If you believe in Unconditional Election, you're basically some form of Calvinist (for me, I would consider Amraldyianism a mild form of Calvinism). Everything in the Calvinist position either builds up the concept of Unconditional Election, or is necessarily concluded from it.

The distinctive doctrine of Arminianism is prevenient grace (that's right, not free will). If you believe in prevenient grace, you're basically some form of Arminian. Everything in the Arminian position either builds up the concept of prevenient grace, or is necessarily concluded from it.

Ephesians 2:6-7; A Devotional

2010-02-06T00:08:00.002-05:00

And also with Christ¹, God has raised us up and sat us down² in the celestrial realms by Christ Jesus so that within these coming times³ He has shown, in His kindness,⁴ the overwhelming⁵ riches of His graciousness⁶ over us by Christ Jesus.

Because these devotions are based upon my translation of the text, I discovered that not only was it nearly impossible to keep up with it around Christmas time, but that once I lost track of it, it was difficult to start up again. So, I am sorry that I haven't been attending to this for a month.

When looking at these verses it is important to remember what came before it, since we are actually in the middle of that action here. It is important to view this section of Ephesians as 'action', for the first few verses of chapter 2 set up the context (we are sinners who deserve the wrath of God), but then, in verse 4, God acts through Christ. This action is nothing less than taking these sinners who deserve His wrath and exalting them to glory through transformation (verse 5) and now given authority to rule beside Him.

It is important to remember that part of humanities purpose is to rule over creation with God (Genesis 1). The redemption through Jesus Christ is as much to do with restoring God's created order as it is about saving us, for God loves all His creation. Here we see God, not only restoring us to be the kinds of people that He intended us to be, but to also restore us to purpose as well.

But I want to emphasize how Christocentric this is! We are sunezoopouesen, sunegeiren, and sunekthisen! Sun- means with, and emphasizes that all these actions (being made alive, being raised up, and being sat down) are not simply down to us, but done with us. We were made alive along side Christ, who was made alive on the third day. We are raised up beside Christ who has ascended. We are sat down into places of authority as Christ has been given full authority. Everything we are given, we are given because it was first given to Christ, and therefore it has been given to us through Christ. We are attached to Him, and are fully dependent on Him for everything.

But all of this glory is meant to be held in contrast to what we deserve, which is nothing. Indeed we deserve His wrath. It is only through recognizing this juxtaposition that we can see the overwhelming riches of His graciousness. This is the fundamental Christian vision of humanity: that we are worthless undeserving sinners who God has designed for great things, and who God has redeemed for His purposes.

Translation notes

1'sunezoopouesen' from verse 5 and 'sunegeiren' and 'sunekthisen' here in verse six all have the same prefix: 'sun', which means 'with'. Therefore, we are 'raised up with' and 'sat down with' in the same sense that we are 'made alive with'. I added the "with Christ" in the beginning because the distributing the "with Christ" through the sentence messes with the flow.

2The juxtaposition of 'sunegeiren' and 'sunekthisen' forms the rhetorical device known as anaphora (repetition of an idea, in this case 'with') in both the senses that the words have the same prefix and ending. However, this didn't flow as powerfully in the English because I couldn't do it using prefixes, thus loosing the cadence of the phrase. Instead, I've attempted to retain the same rhetorical effect by instead using antithesis (hence up and down).

3 This section is kind of interesting if we look at all of the time elements to it. 'Aion' means eternity, but can also mean age or epoch (i.e. long stretch of time). It is also plural, so we are already thinking ages, rather than eternities. The participle of 'to come' (hence 'coming') is in the present tense, thus implying that this ages are indeed arriving right now. But the phrase 'coming ages' implies the future, not the present, for if these ages, or times, were present, then they wouldn't be coming, but arriving. However, the verb 'to show' ('endeixetai') is actually past tense. Therefore, that which God wants to demonstrate, He already has, though who He is demonstrating it to is only just arriving.

The way in which these temporal elements play together in our minds creates a picture of vivid immediacy, and yet I believe it is lost in many of the translations. I've attempted to bring this out more by making sure the verb is past tense, and using the wore 'these' instead of 'the' to emphasize the present tense sense of the participle.

4The Greek word 'chrestotes' means primarily goodness, in the terms of usefulness. There is a strong connection in the ancient mind between morality and practicality, and connection that we would be wise to recover. Thus, 'chrestotes' refers to God's practical kindness and goodness toward us.

I should also mention word order. In most translations, the phrase "in His kindness" comes after "the riches of His grace". I put it before because I think the other way is clumsy in the English.

5The Greek word 'huperballon' etymologically breaks down to 'overthrown' or 'overcast'. Thus it means that it goes far beyond what is necessary. I used to the term 'overwhelming' instead of 'surpassing' because I wanted to retain the preposition 'over' later on in the sentence, and 'overwhelming works better in with this term. This is why translations using 'surpassing' also translate the preposition 'ef' to 'through', 'in', or 'toward'.

6I went with 'graciousness' here over 'grace' because the idea of graciousness is more general, and thus works with the word 'ef' (or 'epi') better. We can get an image of graciousness passing over us like a great blanket, or like the wings of a mother bird over her chicks. The English word 'grace' is more aptly employed to refer to a persons character, or a particular act, rather than one's overall action toward us, I think. Still, both are completely justified by the Greek.

Addictainment

2009-12-08T01:25:00.002-05:00

I have a friend at church by the name of Ben. Really good guy. He's a salesman for a living. In fact, he sell electronic equipment (the guy really loves cameras).

This past Sunday he shared with me that this is the past two weeks have been the best two weeks, in terms of sales, that he has ever had. Well, to some degree, it is unsurprising that the two weeks after Thanksgiving are the best two weeks of the year, but that's not really what caught my attention. What I zoned in on was that these were the best two weeks of his career. I mean ever, and he's been doing it for a few years now.

Question: does anybody recognize the significance of that? That this year more people are buying TVs, DVD players, I-pods, etc... than they have for the past few years? Does that seem odd to you? It seemed odd to me. Think about it for a moment. No really, think.

... I thought the economy was bad.

My wife and I don't own a TV. I'm addicted to television, so we don't keep one so that I don't obsess over it. However, whenever we tell people, guess what their reaction is. Shock! Surprise! I mean everyone has a TV, why don't I? But what's really weird is that many of them get offended. That's right, offended. They're annoyed that I don't own a luxury electrical appliance, as if that were a socially reprehensible thing to do. They try to insist on giving us their extra one, and are amazed that we turn them down.

Am I the only one that thinks that this is messed up? Is it just me? What's more annoying is that I don't own a TV because I can't get enough of it, and I know it is unimportant.

There is something that is really off in our culture where those of us barely struggling to get by still go out and buy a big screen TV. That we are barely managing to buy food, but still are able to go out to the movies. We have really messed up priorities. We don't seem to recognize that entertainment is a luxury.

To be fair though, I don't really think our culture still retains the notion of luxury. A luxury, you see, is something that you don't need, and you don't deserve, but enjoy. Therefore, it is something that you are only able to have with your extra resources.

However, we think that we deserve whatever we want. We are kids in the candy shop demanding that we get candy, and so we look to our parents for guidance. The only problem is that we have been adopted by daddy media and mommy credit card. Daddy tells us that we deserve whatever we want, and Mommy reaches in her giant purse, and buys it for us. At least, this is what we seem to think the situation is.

In reality, we give more money to the banks every year for interest on loans, and we spend more money on things we don't need and don't last than we do on anything else. Why primarily buy brand names, not because they are the best, but because those are the things that we see on TV, and they are therefore familiar and comfortable.

Now I'm a capitalist. Do I think capitalism is a great system? No. It just happens to be the way the world works, so deal with it (After all, Adam Smith wasn't trying to come up with an ideal economic system, but was just studying the way the economy already was working). As such, I don't have a problem with companies doing everything that they can to get our money. They're greedy selfish people (a.k.a. people). What I have a problem is that the absolute stupidity of us who actually trust them. We who think that banks help us by giving us credit cards. We who actually think that a truck being built Ford(c) tough is a good thing (in reality, it doesn't say anything about the quality of the truck).

Why are we so addicted to entertainment? Where did all this hedonism come from? Why the self-indulgence? We all see it. We all know it's bad, yet we can't seem to combat it. I do know this: if America doesn't learn to say no, and learn the value of the honest dollar, then we are going to collapse. We'll be a people who starved to death, holding on to our remotes.

Why do we swear?

2009-12-03T17:07:00.006-05:00

Why do we swear? Why use profanity? My sister recommended a show called Dead Like Me, and after watching an episode of it, I was thinking about the rather liberal use of profanity in the show. I started to wonder, "Why does a show with this level of material feel the need to saturate the scripts with profanity? What's the point?"

There is belief in our culture (maybe it's across humanity; I don't know, I only live in my culture) that the dirty, profane and ugly are more real than the clean, polite and beautiful. Why is that? I mean, that's why shows like this use profanity. That's why a movie with such deep philosophical and sociological thoughts like Good Will Hunting uses profanity. They think it will make it more real. It is odd to me that Comedy Central requires their comedians to be dirty to stay around when just a little over 50 years ago two guys named Bud and Lou inspired the nation just through cleaning up other people's material. Does dirty really sell? Does sex really inspire? Is the ugly really more real than the beautiful? These are thoughts I was thinking today.

Why do we think its more real? Why do rich kids try to experience real life by dressing like hoodlums? Why does politeness seem fake?

After giving it some thought, I've come to the conclusion that this belief is a complete lie. Clean isn't more real than dirty; it just takes work to maintain... Ah! There's the source of the matter!

When something is clean, we know that someone must of cleaned it. When someone's polite, we know it took effort. When something's beautiful, we know that it had been made that way. We instinctively understand entropy, and know that if something has an order, purpose, and beauty to it, it took work to make it so.

Thus our culture has reached some kind of ontologically apathy! We think that the truest sense of a thing is what it is when left unattended, as if rotten grapes are more grape-like than preservatives. But this isn't the case. Our truest selves are what we were designed to be: something that has to be shaped, formed, reconfigured. When left unattended, you and I are completely depraved: vile, selfish, conniving little monsters. But our TRUEST self is what we become through the powerful hands of the potter. What He intended us to be and what He shapes us to be: how He remakes us!

Politeness, cleanness, and beauty: these are not facades that we hide the truth behind (well they can be, but not necessarily). The true point of these things is the same as salt: it brings out the natural flavor of the thing, to accentuate its true self. It's the polish, not the paint.

Ironically, so much of our culture has begun to do the opposite. Comedians hide their lack of creativity behind shock jokes; people swear in stories to hide their pain and sound strong; movies and TVs shows simulate reality by filling the gaps in their scripts with profanity. Profanity doesn't show reality, only laziness.

There was a day when we looked at role models to inspire ourselves to be something more than we currently are. Now we trash our role models to feel better about ourselves. Dead Like Me, for example, is part of a greater media tendency to 'mundanize' the fantastic (consider Shrek, Incredibles, or Dogma). We take something which belongs in fantasy and imagination, and make it somewhat ordinary. It seems to be some sociological need for us to prove and secure that great proverb we all learned when we were young: "Everybody Poops". Gandi is so much easier to relate to when you know he had to use the rest room.

However, what happens when we make all our fantasies realistic, and our role models regular? Simple: we make our imaginations impotent and become consumed by apathy.

And so we trudge along, with the promise that everything else is just as bad as us, and there's no hope to being perfect, and there's gate to goodness, so we should just settle for life as it is, and learn to deal with it. Let us be like Theo Huxtable and aspire to be average.

No. No, I think there is something better. I think there is a better way. There is a person we can aspire to be like. He was good, He was beautiful, He was clean, and He still is. Being polite isn't hiding our failures, but rubbing them out, so that we can be more Christ like, and please the one who made us and saved us.

I don't mind being apathetic about the world. It is not my world! I'm just a soujourner. But let us never be apathetic about God or ourselves, for our goodness rests in His hands, not our own. He will clean us, and make us into what we truly are, and that we be something beautiful.

And something real.

Sports

2009-11-24T00:11:00.002-05:00

My friend Chris and I have had some fun debating the word "sport". Well, it's not so much debating since we basically agree.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but there is an interesting thing going on with this word in America. I kinda of starts in High School, where cheerleaders attempt to refer to what they do as a sport, in an attempt to legitimatize its funding I think, and jocks, in umbrage, claim that it isn't. This extends into adult life, and for many sports fans, there is a strong desire to properly define the concept of sport. Personally, I don't find this a need. Rather, I just find it fun to define and categorize things. So, here are my playful attempts.

Definition

Technically, a sport is any activity done for fun, but we are looking at a more precise definition here. Within human society there have been particular competitions of physical endurance, strategy, and ability which have developed a sociological niche. This niche forms the foundation of much of male social interaction and is thus a source of great interest, development, time, and money.

However, how do we differentiate the competitions that truly fall under this niche and other forms of competitions and recreation? I think these definitions found at wikipedia are quite good attempts. The more offical one that it give is "Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play." However, I also liked the point this point that the article also made: "Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome." I believe it is this second point that marks the primary difference between sports and other kinds of games.

Primarily a sport is about physical competition and ability. It is not simply a physical activity, nor is it simply a competition, but it is precisely a competition of a physical activity, and for a men, a test of masculinity. We men derive our sense of worth usually by our useful and ability. This isn't bad in small doses, just masculine. This is why sports find such a level of importance within the male world. Team camaraderie also demonstrates the primary social structure within which men naturally think.

In light of this, my friend Chris and I identified 4 major factors required for something to be a sport in the above sense of the word:

Athleticism: It must require actual feats of athletic ability.
Objective evaluation: By this it means that points, credit, or victory is awarded by the accomplishment of tasks, rather than a judges opinion of "how well" a task was performed. For instance, synchronized swimming is not a sport: its a dance competition. It is a valid competition and worthy of attention... I guess, but it is not really a sport. It is not the reason is because it is not the actual physical ability that is being judged by the beauty of movement. Compare this to boxing, where it is not how interestingly one punches, but whether one connects and where that matters.
Competition: Yes, it must actually be a competition where there is a winner and a loser.
The human body as the motor of the action: There is a difference between motorized sports, and true sports. Nascar fans often point out that in order to drive at those speeds one must have acute senses, and athletic strength to move the steering wheel. Well, that may be true, but from mere observation of the difference between Nascar fans, and how Nascar is followed when compared to other sports, one can tell that it doesn't quite fit the same niche. The reason is, fundamentally, those athletic abilities are not really the thing that is being tested. It is the motor of the car. Compare that to a bike race, where it is actually the person's body propelling the bike forward. It is the human endurance and leg strength that is being tested, and it is treated like other sports.

Considering these requirements we can define a sport as an objective recreational competition of human physical ability.

What's been going on with me

2009-10-27T00:51:00.002-04:00

Those who have been keeping up with this blog may have noticed that I haven't been keeping up with it very well as of late. The reason for this is because I've been busy looking for a pastoral position. I graduated seminary about a year ago, but at the end of August, my pastor told me that he thought I was ready to begin truly pastoring. So, from then on, I've been looking.

It has actually been rather difficult. It isn't like looking for other kinds of jobs. Number one, it isn't about going for the position you like the best. It is about finding the right fit. There is a relational aspect of pastoring that can't be ignored. So rather important factors, like money or location, can't be the primary qualifications. I have to primarily look at the people of the church.

Second, it is much more difficult to find a those looking for a pastor. It's all about networking rather than want ads.

Finally, there are papers, and sermons, and other such things that I've needed to prepare to include in my resume. So that it a bit of work to add.

All in all, I hope that you guys can pray for me. This is my launch into the rest of my life, and it is rather important that God stays at the steering wheel here. There is one church that I really pray for right now, but it is not about me, but God's will. So please pray that He will guide me, and prepare the way for me.

Thanks.

UnchristianPart VIII: Conclusion

2009-10-12T08:35:00.000-04:00

• Introduction
• Hypocrisy
• Proselytizing
• Antihomosexual
• Sheltered
• Too Political
• Judgmental
• Conclusion

Quite frankly, I liked this book a lot. It was very fair and balanced in its approach. I was a little worried that it was just going to tell us Christians how we were doing everything wrong, but instead, it focused on saying, "Look, here is how we are being understood. Is this what we want?"

In that way, the book was very pragmatic. It isn't saying we are being immoral. Instead, it is saying that how we are doing things isn't working, and if it isn't working, we should try something else.

Now in many ways even the early church was misunderstood. Many thought they were cannibals (Eucharist language) and atheists (because they didn't worship idols). That's going to happen to us too as more and more of the culture becomes ignorant on what Christianity teaches. But instead of becoming upset at this, we should instead take it as an oppurtunity to get back to our roots, and focus on the heart of the message: Jesus Christ. We should focus on making sure that that message is communicated, and no others.

Therefore let us reach out to one another in love, and focus on the finisher of our faith, and put away the petty things that are dividing us. If Jesus is proclaimed, who cares about the rest?

Ephesians 2:4-5; A Devotional

2009-10-11T00:08:00.001-04:00

But, being rich with mercy, God, through His great love with which He has loved us though we were dead in trespasses, has made us alive with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

The point of Paul telling us where we have come from in the past couple of verses is to make clear to us the boundless mercy and grace that has been giving to us. The point of the concepts of mercy and grace is that we do not deserve them.

And that is one of the principle differences between Christianity and any other faith (at least that I am aware of). In man-made religions, humans achieve a particular end, by some means. In Christianity, we are rescued from our own nature.

Lord, Thank you for the marvelous salvation that you have bestowed upon us! Thank You for Your unending grace to us. I can never fully understand it Lord. I can never fully grasp why You would sacrifice so much for us, who are so little. We praise Your name!

UnchristianPart VII: Judgmental

2009-10-07T08:34:00.002-04:00

• Introduction
• Hypocrisy
• Proselytizing
• Antihomosexual
• Sheltered
• Too Political
• Judgmental
• Conclusion

Kinnaman's Thoughts

There are two points of Kinnaman's that I think are incredibly valuable. First he identifies 4 types of judgmental attitudes:

Wrong Verdict: Simply coming to an erroneous conclusion about a person or situation. This is usually what it is that we think of when we think of being judgmental.
Wrong Timing: This is when you come to an accurate conclusion about something, but express it at an inappropriate time. Why is this judgmental? Because , you are passing judgment on the person without thinking about communicating to them. Essentially, you are only passing judgment. You aren't trying to achieve anything with that judgment.
Wrong Motivation: I think this one is pretty obvious. It is when we are right about our judgment, but act out that judgment in an inappropriate fashion. Are we acting out of a sense of justice, or vindictiveness? Is it about doing the right thing, or about revenge?
Playing Favorites: This is the opposite. This is giving grace only to certain persons, while showing sternness to others (sound like any theology?).

All of these attitudes get in the way of reaching out to people. Being insensitive demonstrates to people that you don't really care about them. In the end, that's the biggest problem. If we are trying to reach out to people, then it has to be about them, not about us. If it isn't motivated by love and an honest desire to save them, than what is it?

That is the other thing that Kinnaman talked about: Pride. Often, instead of love, we are motivated by pride. We automatically think that we are better than the people around us. After all, we're saved and they aren't. However, we should never confuse being in a superior place with actually being superior. I found the translation of Romans 2:1,4 that he uses interesting:

You may be saying, "What terrible people you have been talking about!" (see Romans 1) But you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you do these very same things... Don't you realize how kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Or don't you care? Can't you see how kind he has been in giving you time to turn from you sin?

My Thoughts

I think the fundamental problem that much of evangelical Christianity has right now is realizing taht being correct isn't the same thing is being right. Often we think that the accuracy of our opinions justifies how we present these opinions.

Now is there a place and time for speaking harshly, and critically? Yes, there absolutely is. Being it is only within the context of a relationship that gives you the right to do so; a relationship that we currently do not have in the general population. A credible report needs to be established that lets a person know that what you say matter. This cannot be assumed simply because we had it in the past.

Now, I'm giving some Christians more credit than they deserve here. Let's face it, there are a lot of jerks in the church right now, many of them in leadership. But, I'm not speaking to those people here because they (A) would never read this blog anyway and (B) wouldn't recognize I was talking to them even if they did.

I think it is more important for us who honestly mean well to recognize that we need to be careful how we say things. Being correct isn't good enough. We need to stop and consider how a person will understand what it is that we are saying, and adjust how we say it accordingly. This means that we need to listen to them, and know where they are coming from before we speak.