When the government (any branch of it) makes decisions we don't like, it is natural for us to be impassioned in our response. We ought, however, to remember to try to set aside our emotions when we respond. I recently came across this link (link) to a fox news story, whose headline epitomizes the problem I'm describing. The headline is "the feds" have "forced" churches to get "baptism permits." Sounds more like 17th century Europe than 21st century USA. Once you dig into the article, though, you discover that all that is being required is that if churches want to use a river in a park to perform baptisms, they need to get permission in advance.
The story goes on to admit:
“As of today, the park’s policy has been clarified to state that no permit will be required for baptisms within the Riverways,” Supt. William Black wrote in a letter to the congressman. “I can assure you the National Park Service has no intention of limiting the number of baptisms performed within the park.”
The problem with such a headline becomes clear when you see the more disturbing news buried beneath that disclaimer:
In Olympia, Wash., a church was denied a permit to hold a baptism at Heritage Park a few weeks ago. Their request was rejected because the attorney general said the religious sacrament was a violation of the state constitution.
That one is far more disturbing, but the reader by now is disappointed to discover that the headline was just hype.
We could say much the same thing about the coverage of the New Mexico decision that says wedding photographers can't turn down clients simply because the clients are homosexuals. Some of the coverage basically made it sound like the NM state were going to be rounding up wedding photographers and forcing them to take good pictures of homosexuals pretending to marry. In fact, the disappointing decision was far more limited.
Ergun Caner at "Watchmen on the Wall" 2013 has been posted. He is introduced with the story about being disowned by his family, although no one seems to be able to find any evidence that he was ever disowned by anyone except his non-custodial father.
The supposed subject of the talk is "Radical Islam and its influence in America." Caner does not spend much time on this topic, for which I think we are all thankful. Moreover, his autobiographical comments are very limited. While his brief comments may give a wrong impression, particularly coupled with his various accents, they didn't include (as far as I could tell) the kinds of statements that led to such intense criticism of Caner when he was in charge at Liberty University. There is a moment of irony around 5:35 in the video when Caner alleges that "our culture is terrified of speaking truth."
[Noel Weeks] The prominent alternative explanation is that the text is referring to a local flood in the Tigris/Euphrates’ valley. However, in both the Mesopotamian flood accounts and the biblical narrative the ark ends up in the north. The problem is that floods always take things downstream. Floods never take objects upstream. If this was a normal flood in the Tigris/Euphrates’ region, the ark would have gone downstream. The fact that it landed in the north in a mountain range goes against any local flood theory.
In addition to what Steve says, I would add that a massive tsunami can push things a significant way upstream. The following illustrates that point graphically - around nine or ten minutes in, you can actually see a large structure headed upstream at what appears to be about 35 mph:
That said, neither a local flood nor even a local tsunami fully accounts for the ark being moved not just upstream but upstream to a significantly higher elevation. Notice how the tsunami pushes hard upstream within the existing riverbed and even over-flows the bounds of the river bed, yet a position less than 20 feet over the top over the bank of the river remains dry.
If the ark had merely been moved 5 miles upstream, a local flood could possibly account for the ark's movement. But movement upstream and up a significant elevation requires something more than a local flood, even one having the force of a major tsunami.
Given that the fountains of the deep were opened during the great flood, I'm sure that there were tsunami events taking place. It's quite possible that some of the ark's movement was due to a tsunami surge.
Of course, all of this seems rather unnecessary. The flood was world-wide and covered the tops of the mountains. Moreover, the whole reason for the ark was to preserve the life of humans and the air-breathing animals, something that would not have been necessary, had the flood only been local.
By way of disclaimer, I happen to be a blogger on the team at CARM. I didn't mention this post to Matt Slick, nor does it represent his position or the position of CARM (well, it may, if they happen to agree).
I won't address everything that Miss Slick said. It is very sad to see a beautiful young woman departing from the faith, regardless of the reasons, because it means that she is giving up the world to come for the empty and fleeting pleasures of this world - demonstrating a lack of lasting spiritual beauty beneath the veneer, which will soon fade.
This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament? Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either.
The answer to the question is that some things are wrong because they contradict the nature of God, and some things are wrong simply because God has commanded otherwise. An obvious example is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - one tree in the garden. Is eating fruit something in itself evil? No. Rather, it was evil because God had forbidden Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree.
The same kinds of things apply to, for example, the ceremonial law. Eating bacon-wrapped shrimp was not wrong absolutely, but only because God had commanded the Israelites to abstain from such food.
It's the classic distinction between things "malum in se" (evil in themselves - like murder or theft) or "malum prohibitum" (evil because prohibited - like driving after curfew). I'm very surprised that neither Rachel nor Alex had that answer.
Moreover, this distinction should be obvious from the law itself. To disobey God (in general) is clearly a contradiction of the nature of God. Thus, it is also wrong to disobey particular commands of God, even if those commands have an only temporary purpose. To make the matter easier to follow, consider the case of the command that we obey our parents. This command may have its root in the nature of God, but the particular commands of our parents may not. There is no eternal "eat your spaghetti" aspect of God's character, yet it is sinful for a child to disobey his parents' command to eat his spaghetti, because he is not obeying his parents.
I don't believe that this particular issue is really the reason that Rachel abandoned God's law. Still, I would like to take this opportunity to help her see that her abandonment of God's law was irrational. Perhaps God will use this to draw her back to the faith - or to the faith for the first time, if she never believed.
The title of this blog post refers to an interesting article by Robert A. Peterson, who was (and I believe still is) professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary. (Here is a link to the article.)
The arguments answered include the following:
1. The "Vocabulary of Destruction" Argument 2. The Hell-Fire Imagery Argument 3. The Justice of God Argument 4. The "Universalist Passages" Argument 5. The Conditional Immortality Argument
One serious question I would have for my friends and acquaintances who hold to, are sympathetic to, or are considering the annihilationist position: does this exhaust the major divisions of the annihilationist arsenal? I'm not asking whether you find Peterson's responses to be comprehensive and compelling, although I personally found many of them useful. Rather, I'm asking whether he has identified the major points of dispute. Is there some other major argument area that needs to be addressed?
Sir Anthony Buzzard's "Second Response to James White" has lots of flaws. Several of those are involved in his argument from the phrase "our Lord Jesus Christ." He argues that this proves Jesus is not being referred to as Lord YHWH but as Lord Messiah. His main argument in support of this is that "our YHWH" is "a linguistic impossibility" or "an impossibility in language." He argues that when we see "our Lord" it is referring to the "Lord Messiah."
Sir Anthony seems to have overlooked an important counter-example:
Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ,); and he shall reign for ever and ever.
That's the one instance in the New Testament where "our Lord" might not be referring to Jesus.
Moreover, recall that this expression refers to the reversal of the former situation:
Acts 4:26
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ (κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ).
Quoting from:
Psalm 2:2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed (עַל־יְ֝הוָהוְעַל־מְשִׁיחֹֽו)(LXX: κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ), saying,
Notice that Psalm 2:2 does use YHWH there. It gets translated into Greek as Kurion (Lord) and then presented as "our Lord" in Revelation.
Likewise, the "he shall reign for ever and ever" is a reference back to the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets:
Exodus 15:18
The Lord (YHWH) shall reign for ever and ever.
Psalm 146:10
The Lord (YHWH) shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the Lord (YHWH).
Micah 4:7
And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the Lord (YHWH) shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.
Luke 1:33
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
So, if Sir Anthony wants to say that "our Lord" in Revelation 11:15 refers to the Son rather than to the Father, he is still stuck with the verse referring us back to prophecies about Jesus, prophecies that describe Jesus as YHWH.
While Sir Anthony may be correct in saying that we do not find "our YHWH" in the Old Testament, we do find examples where "our Lord" is used in reference to YHWH:
Nehemiah 8:10
Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.
Nehemiah 10:29
They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
Psalm 8:1
O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:9
O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Psalm 135:5
For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
In other words, if Sir Anthony is making the trivial point that one would say "Our Adonai" not "Our YWHW" and thus "Our Lord" in the NT should be understood as corresponding to "Our Adonai," then who cares? It is still an important title of God, but in the New Testament is primarily applied to Jesus.
Ultimately, I realize that some Unitarians will simply assert that Jesus is very exalted, that he reigns with God, or the like. There are a number of significant challenges to those kinds of assertions, but perhaps one of the most troubling is that they eventually must find themselves in a position of bowing at the name of someone whom they believe to be a creature.
Philippians 2:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
I realize that the trinity was not fully revealed in the Old Testament, but in hindsight there were some pretty glaring clues:
Proverbs 30:4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell
0:19 In introducing Caner, Jerry Fallwell says: "The dean of liberty theological seminary, Dr. Ergun Caner, is a converted Muslim. He's told you his own story. And God saved him and his brothers as young men growing up in America. They'd come from Turkey. ... "
24:30 Caner, discussing the story of Abraham's near sacrifice of his son states: "Islam teaches that it was Ishmael. Do you know how I felt when I got to Genesis and I found out the truth of the book. That 2200 years after Moses wrote it, 2700 years after it happened, Mohammed changed the story."
This is actually a widespread modern Islamic view, namely that Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael, not Isaac. Sam Shamoun points out, however, that the early Islamic literature actually supports the fact that it was Isaac. The idea that nearly sacrificed son was Ishmael is apparently a later Islamic development (see Sam's excellent discussion here). So, it's probably not accurate to say that Mohammed changed the story, but rather that his followers did.
24:50 "So, when I take the students under the Dome of the Rock, I tell them, 'this is what I'm gonna do. We're gonna do it in Arabic. You guys don't know Arabic, but what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna tell it, because there's six Muslims who are stationed here all the way along, who are listening to everything that's being said. And we're gonna tell the story the right way.' And they lose their mind, when they hear you say 'Abraham and Isaac.' [Some gibberish] 'Shut him up!'"
I would welcome any Arabic speakers to listen and tell me whether Caner's gibberish there is actually Arabic for "shut him up." In fact, I don't think there is any evidence we can find of Caner actually speaking Arabic, except for the Basmala and the Shahada. In other words, how could Caner tell a story in Arabic?
According to the Youtube description, this is a convocation from January 20, 2006:
Around 13 minutes into the presentation, Dr. Caner posts some pictures of himself apparently from his early years of seminary, in which he still had a mullet. This provides an interesting bridge between the picture of him in his third year of seminary (viewable here) and the picture of him in high school (viewable here).
The British Cyclopaedia (1838), Volume 3, Literature, Geography, and History, in the epoch entry, includes the following among other things:
The Creation has been adopted as an epoch by Christian and Jewish writers, and would have been found very convenient, by doing away with the difficulty and ambiguity of counting before and after any particular date, as is necessary when the era begins at a later period. But, unfortunately, writers are not agreed as to the precise time of commencing. We consider the creation as taking place 4004 years B.C.; but there are about 140 different variations in this respect. The following are those that have been most generally used :—
The Era of Constantinople. In this era the creation is placed 5508 years B.C. It was used by the Russians until the time of Peter the Great, and is still used in the Greek church. The civil year begins the 1st of September, and the ecclesiastical towards the end of March; the day is not exactly determined. To reduce it to our era, subtract 5508 years from January to August, and 5509 from September to the end.
Era of Antioch, and Era of Alexandria. We place these together, because, although they differed at their formation by ten years, they afterwards coincided. They were both much in use by the early Christian writers attached to the churches of Antioch and Alexandria. In the computation of Alexandria, the creation was considered to be 5502 years before Christ, and, in consequence, the year 1 A.D. was equal to 5503. This computation continued to the year 284 A.D., which was called 5786. In the next year (285 A.D.), which should have been 5787, ten years were discarded, and the date became 5777. This is still used by the Abyssinians. The era of Antioch considered the creation to be 5492 years before Christ, and, therefore, the year 285 A.D. was 5777. As this was equal to the date of Alexandria, the two eras, from this time, were considered as one. Dates of the Alexandrian era are reduced to the Christian era by subtracting 5502 until the year 5786, and after that time by subtracting 5492. In the era of Antioch, 5492 are always subtracted.
The Abyssinian Era. The Abyssinians reckon their years from the creation, which they place in the 5493rd year before our era, on the 29th of August, old style; and their dates will consequently exceed ours by 5492 years, and 125 days; they have 12 months of 30 days each, and 5 days added to the end, called pagomen,from the Greek word παγωμενα(added). Another day is added at the end of every fourth year. To know which year is leap year, divide the date by 4, and if 3 remain, the year will be leap year. It always precedes the Julian leap year by 1 year and 4 months. To reduce Abyssinian time to the Julian year, subtract 5492 years and 125 days. The Abyssinians also use the era of Martyrs, or Diocletian, with the same months as in the above.
The Jewish Era. The Jews usually employed the era of the Seleucides, until the fifteenth century, when a new mode of computing was adopted by them. Some insist strongly on the antiquity of their present era; but it is generally believed not to be more ancient than the century above named. They date from the creation, which they consider to have been 3760 years and 3 months before the commencement of our era. Their year is luni-solari consisting either of 12 or 18 months each, and each month of 29 or 30 days. The civil year commences with or immediately after the new moon following the equinox of autumn. The average length of the year of 12 months is 354 days; but, by varying the length of the months Marchesvan and Chisleu, it may consist of 353 or 355 days also. In the same manner, the year of 13 months may contain 883, 384, or 885 days. In 19 years, 12 years have 12 months each, and 7 years 18 months.
One reason that this dating system is important to fans of textual criticism is that numerous medieval manuscripts can be dated by the above-described technique (see p. xiv here, for example).
That was long before Ken Ham (1951 - present) or Archbishop James Ussher (1581 – 1656) were ever a twinkle in their fathers' eyes. For those hopelessly stupid, deluded, or deceived (is there some other option?) people who insist that assigning a young age to the Earth was an invention of the Seventh Day Adventists, keep in mind that these manuscripts go back well before the SDA movement started in 1863 or Ellen G. White (1827 – 1915).
10:05 "We came to America having lived in countries where we were always the majority and now I was the minority."
As far as we can tell, Caner lived only in Sweden prior to coming to America as a young child (too young for kindergarten).
10:10 "We dressed differently."
Caner's high school yearbook photos don't reflect this.
24:25 "I studied about ... 6 hours - it was a seven minute sermon - but I'm eternally blessed, because out of one corner came one guy, and out of the other corner came the other, and both my brothers got saved."
That's not how the Caners have described the brothers' conversion story elsewhere.
29:10 "My father's other wives ... they're still alive, they're still breathing."
We can find only one other wife, the woman that Caner's dad married after he was divorced from Caner's mom.
Around 19:50, Ergun Caner recounts his childhood experience skating and getting injured with his brother Emir.
This is mostly interesting by comparison to Ergun Caner's other comment about skating, as described in this earlier article (link), "I don't roller skate, there's not a lot of roller skating going on in the sand."
37:00 "Mohammed didn't believe we were worshiping the same god."
It seems, however, that Mohammed did think that. One of the most famous verses of the Quran for those who engage in apologetics with Muslims, is this:
Surah 29:46
Sahih International: And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
Pickthall: And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.
Yusuf Ali: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
38:35 "In Surah 61 of Quran, here's what it says, Jesus, supposedly speaking, I must go so that I will send you Achmed. Supposedly a word play on Comforter, it's also a shortened version of Mohammed."
Surah 61:6
Sahih International: And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."
Pickthall: And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.
Yusuf Ali: And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
Caner seems to be conflating the above with John's gospel:
John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter (παράκλητος) will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Sometimes Muslims claim that the text of John 16:7 has been corrupted, so that "parakletos" (as written, meaning comforter) should be periklutos (περικλυτος, meaning "praised" or something similar). This would be similar in meaning, it is alleged, to the name Ahmed. The connection to Surah 61 is that Surah 61 claims that Jesus prophesied of the coming of Mohammed.
44:50 "Both of them say you can be good and he could capriciously just send you to hell because he feels like it. So do the hyper-Calvinists. You want to know why I war with them now. It sounds like their god seems a whole lot more hateful, sounds a whole lot more like Allah than like the God of the Bible who is willing that none should perish. I like a good Calvinist. A Calvinist likes to go door to door, just like I do. A hyper-calvinist makes fun of you for going door to door. "How dare you insult the sovereignty of God. Yeah, why go? They're going to be saved whether we tell them or not!" They don't have a problem with saying that God is the author of evil."
That's a useful distinction between hyper-Calvinists and Calvinists. But where on earth has Caner ever met a hyper-Calvinist, much less been at war with them?
I found this challenge from James P. White (not Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries) to be interesting. I doubt Caner will accept, as I haven't found any examples of Dr. Caner actually doing any live debate.
0:30 "I got my doctorate in Global Apologetics because I'm curious." Dr. Caner's doctorate from the University of South Africa is apparently a doctorate in theology. The title of his thesis was: "Bellum sacrum: the development of the Holy War of the first crusade in light of Augustine's Just War criteria" (see discussion here).
5:05 "You have your rites of passage. Those of you who came from Catholicism - in Catholicism you have confirmation, in Judaism you have bar mitzphah, bat mitzphah, in Islam it's called 'maşallah.' This was mine. And without going into any great detail it is our celebration of manhood and it involves circumcision without any medicines. And then they have a party."
That is not the name for circumcision in Islam. The term is Khitān or Khatna, sometimes Taharah. The term Mā šāʾ Allāh (ما شاء الله) is basically a term of joy and celebration (see here and here). While some Muslims may wait until as late as puberty to have circumcision done, that is not the norm.
18:50 "You fall down, you bust your skull, you fall down you break your elbow, you're supposed to say "inshallah," Allah willed it."
Inshallah is a term that is used about prospective events, similar to the way that Christians say "Lord willing." (see here)
30:50 "Freshman year, Sophomore year, Junior year in high school. Going into my senior year, finally I said, 'why don't you stop,' but he wouldn't. ... I finally took him up on the challenge, just out of shear exhaustion. 'Yeah, fine, I'll go into your little church.'"
According to other accounts, Dr. Caner was converted in 1982, which would have corresponded to the first half of his Junior year.
***
UPDATE: A friend pointed out that Ergun claims (at 18:10): "we're repeating the first chapter of the Koran, six verses, Surah 1, over and over and over." In fact, the first Surah has seven verses.
Each of the books of the New Testament is well preserved as can be seen using the tools of historical research. Historical research, however, can only get us so far with respect to the Old Testament. For example, until recently the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were not very old, and the oldest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament were only about as old as the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped the situation out somewhat. Nevertheless, we have no large segments of the Old Testament Scriptures that can be dated to before the 6th century B.C. (before the captivity in Babylon). Moses, however, wrote the first books of Scripture hundreds of years before that, perhaps even a thousand years before that.
Moreover, while the Dead Sea Scrolls were an amazing archaeological find that boosted our knowledge of the state of the text in ancient times, it represents a geographically non-diverse transmission. Likewise, while the Masoretes (especially in the medieval period) were fastidious, they also left a very controlled transmission of the text.
The Septuagint transmission is slightly more interesting than that of the MT. The LXX, however, at best represents a post-inspiration translation of the text - and its early transmission is shrouded in legend.
All that said, it would be great if we could know that the text of Moses had survived substantially intact down to the days of Jesus.
And we can know that. Abraham said, "They have Moses." That wouldn't be true if they did not have the Torah. Recall that Jesus recounts in the parable of Lazarus:
Luke 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."
Moreover, Jesus and the apostles appealed constantly to the Old Testament Scriptures. Likewise, Jesus told the Pharisees:
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
They could not testify to Jesus if they did not exist.
Thus, while we may be unable to provide historical proof that the Old Testament Scriptures are in the form they existed before the 6th century B.C., we can demonstrate from Jesus' own testimony that they were intact in his day. Moreover, we know what they said in Jesus' day. Therefore, we can have confidence that we have a well-preserved Old Testament and not only a well-preserved New Testament.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, my debate opponent has had to reschedule the debate that was previously scheduled for tomorrow, July 20, 2013. Lord Willing, I will provide some posts on the topic of the debate over the upcoming week or month, depending on how much time I have. I apologize to my regular readers for the shortage of blog posts recently.
My friends monty and taco (not his real name), recently directed me to a post by Scott Oliphint regarding covenantal apologetics (link to post). Among Oliphint's important observations:
So, to the extent that a Covenantal Apologetic conforms to its theological roots, it is consistent, and that consistency is measured by Holy Scripture.
Which brings me to my second point. Consistency, rationality, and all such concepts have to be measured by the standard of Scripture, and not, in the first place, by what man’s mind can grasp or calculate.
Dr. Brian Mattson has posted a pdf corresponding to a lecture titled, "Cultural Amnesia: What Makes Pietism Possible?" The lecture makes an interesting comparison between Van Drunen-style two kingdoms views and those who argue that vaccinations are unnecessary.
Very few American travelers to certain African countries come down with yellow fever. So, it may seem unjust to require American travellers to get a yellow fever vaccination before entering those countries. On the other hand, the reason for the low incidence of yellow fever may be precisely because American travelers are required to get vaccinated against yellow fever before entering.
The point of the analogy is that sometimes a given state of affairs has an underlying cause. Ignoring that underlying cause can lead to drawing wrong conclusions from the state of affairs.
Van Drunen and similar folks make this error when they make the "Argument From Cultural Homogeneity" (see the pdf linked). But there is a significant objection to this argument. Mattson explains:
Look at it again: (A) "There is nothing distinctively 'Christian" about cultural pursuits because (B) there is widespread cultural homogeneity." But what if I argue the other way around: (B) there is widespread homogeneity precisely because (A) Christians have historically been effective in transforming cultural norms and expectations? This is precisely the conclusion VanDrunen does not want readers to draw. So it is not enough for him to simply point to the fact of cultural homogeneity. He has to account for it.
The way that VanDrunen attempts to account for this homogeneity is by reference to God's covenant with Noah. Mattson skillfully rebuts this point:
Think about it for a moment. What is the covenant with Noah all about? At its core, it is about stability and regularity. Never again will God destroy all living creatures with a flood. God promises that "as long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease" (Gen. 8:22). The refrain, "never again" is repeated three times (8:21; 9:11, 15). The sign of the rainbow will be an enduring sign of an "everlasting covenant" between God and all living creatures. In other words, the commitments God makes in this covenant are inalterable. God's promises simply cannot fail. God commits to never destroy the earth by a flood? Sure enough, he has made good on this promise. God commits to uphold the regularity and uniformity of nature? Sure enough, God has made good on this promise. The sun still rises and winter still follows autumn. Now let us ask: what if God promised that there will be widespread homogeneity of cultural norms and expectations among the human race? Given God's nature and the nature of the Noahic covenant, then there has been, in fact, widespread cultural homogeneity since the time of Noah!
Few suggestions can be more historically ignorant and empirically false. To state the blindingly obvious: the history of the human race is not a history of cultural homogeneity.
There's plenty more in the pdf linked above. It does remind me a little of Frame's comment in "The Escondido Theology": "Indeed, God's covenant with Noah is religious through and through, even on the narrowest definitions of "religion." ... God's covenant with Noah is an administration of God's redemptive grace, religious through and through, just as those with Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ." (p. 137) This stands in contrast to VanDrunen's assertion (quoted by by Frame on p. 136):
Furthermore, Genesis 9 makes it evident that the covenant of common grace regulates temporal, cultural affairs rather than more narrowly religious affairs pertaining to salvation from sin. (pp. 27-28)
(as quoted by Frame)
One of the problems of VanDrunen's view on the two kingdoms is that it suffers from the same kind of ontological problem as atheistic morality. Atheists refuse to acknowledge that their standards of morality are borrowed property. The VanDrunen-style two kingdoms view makes the same kind of mistake, to a lesser degree, in terms of committing the cultural amnesia Mattson describes.
Dr. Brian Mattson has a post in which he distinguishes between Horton's views on the two kingdoms and Van Drunen's views on the two kingdoms (link to post). Dr. Mattson's post should help to explain part of the problem with engaging the topic -- there are a variety of "two kingdoms" views even amongst folks like Van Drunen and Horton, each of whom would reject the position of Calvin and the Westminster divines.
Spealing of Calvin, Dr. Mattson also has a post in which he explains the problem with folks like Van Drunen trying to associate Calvin with their position (link to post). Mattson makes an excellent observation about the preface to Calvin's great Institutes of the Christian Religion:
Before Calvin ever gets to writing the book, he begins with something called a "Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France." It seems fairly strange that a man who believes Christian doctrine to be irrelevant to the "civil" realm would dedicate his work on Christian doctrine to the head of the civil realm. But Calvin is more specific. He writes: "For the Most Mighty and Illustrious Monarch, Francis, Most Christian King of the French, His Sovereign, John Calvin Craves Peace and Salvation in Christ." So... Francis is a "Christian" monarch. This way of speaking is anathema to modern Two Kingdoms advocates.
...
When offering his defense to Francis, he writes: "Worthy indeed is this matter of your hearing, worthy of your cognizance, worthy of your royal throne! Indeed, this consideration makes a true king: to recognize himself a minister of God in governing his kingdom. Now, that king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God's glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage."
There is more in Dr. Mattson's post - I encourage you to check it out.
Matthew 27:62-66
Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."
Pilate said unto them, "Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
Matthew 28:2-4 & 11-15
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
But William Lane Craig says, in response to the question "were there guards at the tomb":
Well now this is a question that I think is probably best left out of the program, because the vast, vast majority of New Testament scholars would regard Matthew's guard story as unhistorical. I can hardly think of anybody who would defend the historicity of the guard at the tomb story. And the main reasons for that are two:
One is because it's only found in Matthew and it seems very odd that if there were a Roman guard or even a Jewish guard at the tomb that Mark wouldn't know about it and that there wouldn't be any mention of it.
The other reason is that nobody seemed to understand Jesus' resurrection predictions. The disciples - who heard them most often - had not an inkling of what he meant and yet somehow the Jewish authorities were supposed to have heard of these predictions and understood them so well that they were able to set a guard around the tomb. And again, that doesn't seem to make sense.
So, most scholars regard the guard at the tomb story as a legend or a Matthean invention that isn't really historical.
Fortunately, this is of little significance for the empty tomb of Jesus, because the guard was mainly employed in Christian apologetics to disprove the conspiracy theory that the disciples stole the body. But no modern historian or New Testament scholar would defend a conspiracy theory, because it's evident when you read the pages of the New Testament that these people sincerely believed in what they said. So, the conspiracy theory is dead, even in the absence of a guard at the tomb.
The true significance of the guard at the tomb story is that it shows that even the opponents of the earliest Christians did not deny the empty tomb, but rather involved themselves in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain it away by saying that the disciples had stolen the body. And that's the real significance of Matthew's guard at the tomb story.
This shows part of the soft underbelly of William Lane Craig's excessive reliance on scholarship over revelation. The text itself treats the account as historical. There are no signals in the text that the account is mythical or parabolic. Indeed, the theory that the "vast, vast majority of New Testament scholars" would be adopting here is one that says that the text has its origins in the will of man rather than in the inspiration of the Spirit.
Let's consider the two reasons that Craig gives. The first reason is Mark's omission of the account. This is hardly a compelling reason. After all, while Matthew includes the vast majority of the material found in Mark, Mark contains less than three quarters of the material found in Matthew. Mark is simply a significantly shorter gospel. The guard at the tomb story, while significant to the conspiracy story and consequently to Matthew's apparently Jewish primary audience, is not a central aspect of the resurrection account. It's not only absent from Mark but also from Luke and John.
In this way it is similar to Matthew's account of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27) that Jesus miraculously paid for himself and Peter with the help of a fish. That account likewise is not found in Mark, Luke, or John, and likewise is of particular interest to Matthew's presumably Jewish primary audience.
Moreover, while the first half of the guard at the tomb account is in an easily separable pericope, the second half of the guard at the tomb account is woven into the account of the arrival of the women at the tomb, which is part that Craig would undoubtedly consider historical. Thus, the keepers of the tomb should also be regarded as historical.
The second reason that Craig gives is that the disciples did not understand Jesus' resurrection predictions, and therefore it is unlikely that Jesus' critics would have recalled these predictions. This analysis seems contrary to our common experience. Often, one's harshest critics pay even more attention to one's words than one's own friends. Moreover, the disciples had a mistaken notion that Jesus first coming was to be like his second coming, in terms of being triumphant. They seemed not to accept his very clear predictions of his own death. By contrast, Jesus' critics mocked his prediction of his death and accused him of paranoia ("The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?" John 7:20, for example).
Thus, the disciples were quick to overlook Jesus' comments specifically predicting his resurrection. By contrast, Jesus' critics hung on his every word. ("Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him." Luke 11:54) So, when they were thinking how to eliminate this movement, they were not depressed and in despair over Jesus' death, but instead were focused on trying to stamp out the movement altogether.
Neither of Craig's reasons, therefore, provide a compelling case for rejecting the historicity of the guard at the tomb account.
The clip from the John Ankerberg show can be seen in the embedded video, below.
By the way, Geisler got on Mike Licona's case for denying the historicity of the mass Jerusalem resurrection account. Why hasn't he criticized Craig for denying the historicity of the guard at the tomb accounts? In fact, William Lane Craig's analysis of the account and its significance are significantly more harmful to the doctrine of inerrancy than Licona's treatment of the mass resurrection as apocalyptic. Where is the consistency? Is Geisler simply unaware?
Reformed Apologist | Male | Adult | Bible-Believing | 5 Solas | 5 Petals on my Tulip | Ecclesiastically Presbyterian | not Federal Visionist | Optimistic in my eschatology, but not dogmatic | Opposed to the errors of Rome | Opposed to the errors of Pelagius | Trinitarian | In favor of Christian liberty | Otherwise Anonymous
This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile. Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here. More
