Wednesday, March 13, 2013
New Roman Catholic Pope Elected by the Cardinals
Not this guy (link) but Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from Argentina. Naturally, he is "Pope Francis."
Until He Pay the Uttermost Farthing
Two of the verses sometimes used to argue for the position that hell is eternal state:
Matthew 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Matthew 18:34
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Thinking about this long ago, I had assumed that the man would eventually be able to pay off the debt, even if it took millenia to do it. So, I was confused about how this would be a good illustration of eternity, unless the point was that millenia is an analogy for eternity.
But what I had neglected to consider was basic economics. The man owes the massive debt in today's money. But a talent of gold tomorrow is worth less than a talent of gold today - and a talent of gold in a hundred years is even less. There is time value to money.
The amount of money owed in the Matthew 18 parable is massive. Some have suggested that a talent corresponds to about 6,000 days wages. Thus, 10,000 talents corresponds to about 60,000,000 days wages. If money had no time value, it would take 164,000 years (or so) to pay off the debt. But if the time value of money is even 1/1000th of a percent, the man would never be able to pay the interest on the debt - each day he would owe even more than the previous day.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I provided a clarifying comment in the comment box, but perhaps it makes sense to place it in the main post:
It's not a question of inflation. Even in an inflation-free system, a dollar (or ruble, or yen, or euro, or peso, or pound) today is worth more to people than a dollar (or whatever) a year from now. That is to say, even if the dollar will buy the same sandwich in one year that it buys today, we'd rather have the money now, thanks. It's a fundamental principle of economics.
And Matthew, Matthew's audience, and (obviously) Jesus were aware of the concept of interest. Interest factors explicitly into another parable (the parable of the talents, see Matthew 25). In that parable, the lord was not satisfied to merely have his talent back at the end of the time period. He expected that it should at least have received interest.
Matthew 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Matthew 18:34
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Thinking about this long ago, I had assumed that the man would eventually be able to pay off the debt, even if it took millenia to do it. So, I was confused about how this would be a good illustration of eternity, unless the point was that millenia is an analogy for eternity.
But what I had neglected to consider was basic economics. The man owes the massive debt in today's money. But a talent of gold tomorrow is worth less than a talent of gold today - and a talent of gold in a hundred years is even less. There is time value to money.
The amount of money owed in the Matthew 18 parable is massive. Some have suggested that a talent corresponds to about 6,000 days wages. Thus, 10,000 talents corresponds to about 60,000,000 days wages. If money had no time value, it would take 164,000 years (or so) to pay off the debt. But if the time value of money is even 1/1000th of a percent, the man would never be able to pay the interest on the debt - each day he would owe even more than the previous day.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I provided a clarifying comment in the comment box, but perhaps it makes sense to place it in the main post:
It's not a question of inflation. Even in an inflation-free system, a dollar (or ruble, or yen, or euro, or peso, or pound) today is worth more to people than a dollar (or whatever) a year from now. That is to say, even if the dollar will buy the same sandwich in one year that it buys today, we'd rather have the money now, thanks. It's a fundamental principle of economics.
And Matthew, Matthew's audience, and (obviously) Jesus were aware of the concept of interest. Interest factors explicitly into another parable (the parable of the talents, see Matthew 25). In that parable, the lord was not satisfied to merely have his talent back at the end of the time period. He expected that it should at least have received interest.
Habemus Papam!
Habemus Papam. No, the Roman Catholics don't have a pope. But Christians have a father. As Scripture teaches: "call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9) Perhaps I should have said "Habemus Patrem" to be more accurate, but that would lose the rhetorical effect, and no one is left confused by what I mean, I trust.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Thursday, March 07, 2013
R. Scott Clark on "All Heretics Quote Scripture"
R. Scott Clark today responded on his blog to the comment that "all heretics quote Scripture." It's a true statement that simply testifies to the universal recognition of the authority of Scripture. It does not prove what its advocates seem to want to imagine that it proves. R. Scott Clark explains:
As far as the origin of the quotation goes, Vincent of Lerins was one of the early people to use a line like that one in his Commonitory. But the phrase is used (in a very different sense) today by apologists for Rome, such Bryan Cross, who wrote:
Bryan does not plainly state that he thinks Scripture is ambiguous, but David DeJong in the comment box at Called to (Roman) Communion express the matter straight:
-TurretinFan
According to the Reformed churches, the Bible is the Word of God. It norms all norms. Even though it is contrary to the spirit of the modern age we still hold that the Bible is sovereign over the church (contra Rome) and the reader (contra rationalism and subjectivism). We say that the Scriptures produced the church (not the reverse). The Scriptures fundamentally are the Word of God. That Word was given through human authors but that process of revelation was superintended by God the Spirit. It was Spirit speaking through prophets and apostles. There is a real humanity to Scripture but that humanity does not norm the divine authority, inspiration, integrity, or truthfulness of Scripture.I would only tweak his statement "the Scriptures produced the church" by pointing out that strictly speaking it was revelation that produced the church, and that the revelation that produced the church has been inscripturated now, though it was in the process of being inscripturated during the apostolic age.
The churches do not create the canon or the Scriptures. Rather the churches simply receive the Scriptures and the canon. The Scriptures are divinely formed. Contra Rome the authority of the church is ministerial not magisterial. The same principle applies to the autonomous modern rationalist or subjectivist.
It’s true that the Bible must be read. This is where the church enters. Who gets to say what the Scriptures mean? Is it the sovereign rationalist or the sovereign subjectivist? No, it is the divinely instituted and constituted community of interpretation. Does that community (the church) norm the revelation? No. The revelation norms the community. At the same time we are not skeptical. The Scriptures can be understood because they are meant to be understood and interpreted and we are constituted to read and interpret Scripture. We do so, the Spirit helping us, illuminating the Word for us and witness to us that what the Scriptures teach is true.
As far as the origin of the quotation goes, Vincent of Lerins was one of the early people to use a line like that one in his Commonitory. But the phrase is used (in a very different sense) today by apologists for Rome, such Bryan Cross, who wrote:
Because the essence of Scripture is not the letter but the meaning, it is not enough to have Scripture as support for one’s doctrine, since “all heretics quote Scripture.”But this statement presupposes that the letter of Scripture does not convey the meaning of Scripture. Otherwise, it should be sufficient to have the letter of Scripture as support, if the letter and the meaning are harmonious and the letter of Scripture is not ambiguous.
Bryan does not plainly state that he thinks Scripture is ambiguous, but David DeJong in the comment box at Called to (Roman) Communion express the matter straight:
As soon as you recognize that Scripture is ambiguous and that there is not going to be interpretive agreement on every issue (e.g. baptism) and that sincere Christians can sincerely disagree, then you need to account for that in your construal of “essentials.”It is an old error, one Irenaeus identified with the Gnostics in his "Against Heresies," as we've previously seen (link).
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Trinity Review of Year of Faith
Despite the passing of John Robbins, the Trinity Review continues occasionally to publish reviews. The latest one is a review of Rome's "Year of Faith." The review takes a position of continuity with respect to Rome - it continues to reject the gospel now, just as it has at least since Trent. The language may be more polished now, but that makes the snare more subtle. One of the best lines in the review was "Once Evangelicals go down the ecumenical path into Rome and its rituals, it is difficult to resist her deceptions, except by the Word of God." To that I would add that consequently one of the first things that many of Rome's apologists seem eager to do is to cast suspicion and doubt on the Scriptures and their clarity, as though the Scriptures were hopelessly ambiguous and in need an of external, authoritative interpreter.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I should add that Benedict XVI's long-awaited encyclical on faith was not published, allegedly because it was not complete. If it is ever completed and published, the Vatican has already indicated that it will not be an encyclical and will not in itself carry the weight of papal authority.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I should add that Benedict XVI's long-awaited encyclical on faith was not published, allegedly because it was not complete. If it is ever completed and published, the Vatican has already indicated that it will not be an encyclical and will not in itself carry the weight of papal authority.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Unionism Rejected (by a Lutheran, of course)
You can skip the first two minutes of the video, which has almost nothing to do with the topic of the video. The topic of the video relates to "unionism," which is a Lutheran term for co-organization, joint worship, and/or cooperation between churches that hold to different things. Historically, the union that prompted the coining of this term was (I believe) the Prussian Union of 1817, which was a union of Lutheran and Reformed churches.
Obviously, I'm not Lutheran, and I would agree with my Reformed forebearers that the Lutheran churches teach error - particularly error regarding the sacraments and worship. I agree with the Lutheran in this video that we need to agree to disagree apart, at least in some sense. We cannot simply ignore our differences or pretend that they do not exist.
Furthermore, I agree with the Lutheran in this video, that people are justified by grace alone through faith alone, not by being doctrinally perfect. Thus, while I think that Lutheran churches have false doctrine (on certain points) and improper worship (on certain points), I acknowledge that Lutheran churchgoers may be saved through faith in Christ alone.
The problem with objections to "unionism" is that some of them tend to be pretty extreme. The Lutheran in the video doesn't give many examples of what constitutes "unionism" in his view, so it is hard to say where he stands on that point.
I'm appreciative of the efforts of groups like the "White Horse Inn," in which Lutherans and Reformed people cooperate in presenting the gospel and in addressing certain errors rejected both by Lutherans and Reformed. Moreover, I myself cooperate in presenting the gospel with my baptist brother, James White - despite our important differences on issues of paedobaptism and church government.
Thus, although there are differences that are enough to prevent us from having a denominational unity with either Lutherans or Baptists, we can still cooperate in areas that do not require such denominational unity. To the extent that the Lutheran in the video would oppose such an idea, I would respectfully disagree with him.
Nevertheless, in general his comments do help to explain the importance of maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy, even at the expense of unity. For that limited point:-TurretinFan
Obviously, I'm not Lutheran, and I would agree with my Reformed forebearers that the Lutheran churches teach error - particularly error regarding the sacraments and worship. I agree with the Lutheran in this video that we need to agree to disagree apart, at least in some sense. We cannot simply ignore our differences or pretend that they do not exist.
Furthermore, I agree with the Lutheran in this video, that people are justified by grace alone through faith alone, not by being doctrinally perfect. Thus, while I think that Lutheran churches have false doctrine (on certain points) and improper worship (on certain points), I acknowledge that Lutheran churchgoers may be saved through faith in Christ alone.
The problem with objections to "unionism" is that some of them tend to be pretty extreme. The Lutheran in the video doesn't give many examples of what constitutes "unionism" in his view, so it is hard to say where he stands on that point.
I'm appreciative of the efforts of groups like the "White Horse Inn," in which Lutherans and Reformed people cooperate in presenting the gospel and in addressing certain errors rejected both by Lutherans and Reformed. Moreover, I myself cooperate in presenting the gospel with my baptist brother, James White - despite our important differences on issues of paedobaptism and church government.
Thus, although there are differences that are enough to prevent us from having a denominational unity with either Lutherans or Baptists, we can still cooperate in areas that do not require such denominational unity. To the extent that the Lutheran in the video would oppose such an idea, I would respectfully disagree with him.
Nevertheless, in general his comments do help to explain the importance of maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy, even at the expense of unity. For that limited point:-TurretinFan
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Caners on the John Ankerberg Show - Part 3
"Life of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad" is a third episode of the Caners on the John Ankerberg Show in 2013.
Biography/Autobiography
The intro has the same line about growing up in Columbus and having a mosque-building father (which has already been discussed here). Ankerberg says that "their family disowned them," (1:44) which we could ask Ankerberg to justify - the justification would seem to be that their non-custodial father disowned them.
Substance
Ergun seems to insist that that Shahada says that Mohammed is "his final seal of the prophets" or "the final prophet." While that is doubtless the Sunni view of Mohammed, the literal translation of portion of the Shahada about Mohammed is just "... Mohammed is the messenger of Allah."
One important point that is presented is the fact that Mohammed is described in the Koran as being an example for Muslims:
Surah 33:21 Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. (YUS)
However, if one attempts to have as many wives as Mohammed, one will run smack into the limitation of four wives that is present in Islam. Likewise, if one attempts to prevent ones widows from marrying, one will run afoul of Islamic law.
Ergun raises the idea (around 5:30 into the clip) that Mohammed says in the Hadith that "he" was spiritually married to Mary. The apparent source for this is the following, as taken from the Caners' book, "Unveiling Islam":
I tried to track down a better citation for this alleged narration. I found an article by Salman Hassan Jabbar, dated to 1994, which states:
With a little more digging, I found an interesting response from Rasheed Gonzales (link to response) to use of this narration. In relevant part, Rasheed writes:
Amusing Quotation
At around 8:15 into the clip, Ergun provides an amusing soundbite, "Fine, I don't like half the Christians I know." His point was that it is not Christians who are the reason for us to be Christians, it is Christ. That point is valid and good, even though the statement itself is itself a little amusing and somewhat sad, given our experience with him.
-TurretinFan
Biography/Autobiography
The intro has the same line about growing up in Columbus and having a mosque-building father (which has already been discussed here). Ankerberg says that "their family disowned them," (1:44) which we could ask Ankerberg to justify - the justification would seem to be that their non-custodial father disowned them.
Substance
Ergun seems to insist that that Shahada says that Mohammed is "his final seal of the prophets" or "the final prophet." While that is doubtless the Sunni view of Mohammed, the literal translation of portion of the Shahada about Mohammed is just "... Mohammed is the messenger of Allah."
One important point that is presented is the fact that Mohammed is described in the Koran as being an example for Muslims:
Surah 33:21 Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. (YUS)
However, if one attempts to have as many wives as Mohammed, one will run smack into the limitation of four wives that is present in Islam. Likewise, if one attempts to prevent ones widows from marrying, one will run afoul of Islamic law.
Ergun raises the idea (around 5:30 into the clip) that Mohammed says in the Hadith that "he" was spiritually married to Mary. The apparent source for this is the following, as taken from the Caners' book, "Unveiling Islam":
"Oh Khadija, know that God has wedded me to Mary, Christ's mother in paradise." HE repeated this to Aiysha, "Oh Aiysha [sic], didn't you know that God Almighty in heaven has wedded me to Mary, the daughter of Imran, to Kulthum, Moses' sister and to Assiya, wife of the Pharoh."7(pp. 136 and 141, "[sic]" is in the book - note that the book is not necessarily the Caners' own writing - the chapters are allegedly written by various women)
...
7. Related by Abu Umama in later ahadith.
I tried to track down a better citation for this alleged narration. I found an article by Salman Hassan Jabbar, dated to 1994, which states:
Also worth mentioning in this connection is that Muhammad will have the lion's share of all the good things in paradise for surely he was singled out for favor by God by virtue of his flight into the seven heavens (Al Isra'a wal Mi'raj incident) It was there too that he received from God's hand all the teachings which he transmitted to his followers. When he returned to earth from that trip he was unable to hide the fact from his first wife, Khadija - the eldest. He told her as she lay dying: "Oh Khadija, know that God has wedded me to Mary, Christ's mother in paradise." He repeated this story to his favorite wife, Aiysha, after the Hejira, saying:" Oh Aiysha, didn't you know that God Almighty in heaven wedded me to Mary the daughter of Imran, to Kulthum, Moses' sister and to Assiya, wife of the Pharaoh". (related by Abu Umama)Abu Umama was one of the companions (sahaba) of Mohammad. That said, I was not able to verify this supposed hadith from either Bukhari's collection of hadith or Muslim's collection of hadith.
With a little more digging, I found an interesting response from Rasheed Gonzales (link to response) to use of this narration. In relevant part, Rasheed writes:
(see the remainder of Rasheed's post, for the argument from this quotation, but the gist of the argument is that the chain of narration is weak, and it is possible that this hadith is actually ancient Christian propaganda, designed to make Muslims appear [even more?] despicable to Christians.)Let us now take a look at what Ibn Kathîr said in his exegesis of the above mentioned verse (66:5) in his Tafsîr al-Qur'ân al-'Adhîm. Ibn Kathîr mentions,In his al-Mu'jam al-Kabîr, Abul-Qâsim at-Tabarânî said,Abū Bakr bin Sadaqah narrated to us: Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Marzūq narrated to us: 'Abdullah bin Umayyah narrated to us: 'Abdul-Quddūs narrated to us from Sâlih bin Hayyân, from Ibn Buraidah, from his father: [concerning] «widows and virgins» (66:5), [who] said, "In this verse, Allah promised His prophet, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, that He would marry him to the widow: Âsiyah, wife of Pharaoh, and with the virgins: Mary bint 'Imrân."In his biography of Mary, peace be upon her, Hâfidh Ibn 'Asâkir mentioned from the route of Suwaid bin Sa'îd: Muhammad bin Sâlih bin 'Umar narrated to us from ad-Dahhâk and Mujâhid, from Ibn 'Umar, he said,Gabriel came to Allah's messenger, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, at the death of Khadîjah and said, "Surely, Allah greets her with peace and gives glad tidings of a house of pearls in Paradise, distant from the fire, containing no hardship, nor noise, of hollow pearls between Mary bint 'Imrân's house and Âsiyah bint Muzâhim's house."And from the hadîth of Abî Bakr al-Hudhalî, from 'Ikrimah, from Ibn 'Abbâs that the Prophet, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, entered upon Khadîjah while she was dying and said, «O Khadîjah, if you meet your co-wives, then greet them with peace from me.» She said, "O Allah's messenger, have you married before me?" He said, «No, but Allah will marry me to Mary bint 'Imrân, Âsiyah wife of Pharaoh, and Kulthum sister of Moses.» [It is] weak also.Abū Ya'lâ said,Ibrâhîm bin 'Ar'arah narrated to us: 'Abdun-Nūr bin 'Abdillah narrated to us: Yūnus bin Shu'aib narrated to us from Abî Umâmah, he said, 'Allah's messenger, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, said, «I have learned that Allah married me in Paradise to Mary bint 'Imrân, Kulthum sister of Moses, and Âsiyah wife of Pharaoh.» So I said: [be it] a pleasure for you, O Allah's messenger!'
Amusing Quotation
At around 8:15 into the clip, Ergun provides an amusing soundbite, "Fine, I don't like half the Christians I know." His point was that it is not Christians who are the reason for us to be Christians, it is Christ. That point is valid and good, even though the statement itself is itself a little amusing and somewhat sad, given our experience with him.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, February 28, 2013
August/September of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)
The following is part seven of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.
AUGUST
A month of Silence, in which Rachel critiques the Apostle Paul (and of course, by implication, the Holy Spirit) for two passages: 1 Timothy 2:11-12, verses saying that a woman should learn in quietness and submission and not teach and/or assume authority over a man; and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, verses that say the same thing, adding that women who have questions should ask their husbands at home, because women shouldn’t speak in the church.
It seems that Ms. Evans understands the importance of context in Biblical interpretation, for she mentioned it in a previous chapter, so it is surprising that she does not deal with the verses 13 and 14 in 1 Timothy 2 which follow the first set of verses she cites. Here the Apostle Paul gives the reason for the teaching: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” So here we have two separate reasons: the order of creation and aptitude for deception displayed at the Fall. One conservative commentator suggests that since the woman was deceived into sin, she was less culpable than Adam who went into transgression with his eyes wide open. Whatever you think of this comment, it is indisputable that the reason God gives for women to not be teachers and authorities in churches is based on two historical incidents: the Creation and the Fall.
Evans views New Testament epistles as “letters, broken pieces of correspondence between early Christians, dating back thousands of years,” clearly once again impugning the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. This is really the key to her errors. There are differences among believers about a number of things such as forms of church government, mode and type of baptism, worship song, etc. This is undeniable, and in this life in which we see “in a glass darkly” it is hardly avoidable. Yet these differences can be accepted graciously if those who hold to the different views share a view of Scripture that acknowledges it as infallible and inerrant. But when Scripture is no longer believed to be God-breathed and therefore without error, one’s conclusions become suspect. One may arrive at “conservative” conclusions even with unsound, liberal assumptions (an accusation sometimes leveled against scholar-theologian F.F. Bruce). Nevertheless, a high view of Scripture is warranted by Scripture itself!
One of what Evans calls “the embarrassing bits” of the Bible is Titus 1:12 which she quotes as saying, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This (partial) quotation is followed by a few not very funny, sarcastic remarks; however, she once again neglected her own rule about context-- she left out the beginning of the sentence, “One of them, a prophet of their own, said…” Kathy Keller did a good job reviewing the book on the Gospel Coalition website [FN1], making mention of Evans’ glaring omission.
And when Rachel says she never once heard a sermon preached on this passage, may we not conclude that she just ought to get out more or go to better churches? Surely SermonAudio.com is easy enough to use.
She constructs a straw man argument next by saying, “we dishonor the original intent and purpose of the Epistles when we assume they were written in a vacuum for the purpose of filling our calendars and bumper stickers.” No doubt people use them that way, but who would assume they were written with such an intent and in a vacuum? For a few much more cogent comments about placarding Bible verses without context, please see Rosaria Butterfield’s Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, pp. 66-67, a book which takes the Bible’s inerrancy and inspiration quite seriously.
The next part of the book gets really interesting. I’d love to know who originated the story, but here are the key elements of the plot:
The latter part of the chapter covers her visits to 1) a Benedictine monastery in Alabama; and 2) a Quaker Meeting in West Knoxville, Tennessee. Nothing of much interest happened, except she learned that wearing heels in a monastery is distracting so she switched to flats for the Quaker meeting. An important lesson, should any ladies reading this decide to make such visits themselves.
SEPTEMBER
The keynote for the last month of Rachel’s Biblical Year is “Grace” and the key verse is “On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts.” What follows is her comical foray into finding a shofar (ram’s horn), learning to sound it, and then proceeding to keep the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), which included baking challah and less traditionally, making a New Year’s Resolution List. In the coming year she would: try a new recipe a week, eat more ethically (seriously!), embrace the prospect of motherhood, identify and praise women of valor, nurture the contemplative impulse, make room for ritual and remembrance, champion women leaders in the Church, partner with World Vision to work for the women’s empowerment and education worldwide, and honor Dan (her husband).
She also had a Tashlich ceremony, dating back, she says, to the Middle Ages, in which “the sins of the repentant are ceremonially cast into the currents of God’s grace.” She ties her conclusion to her introduction: 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 commended long hair for women; Rachel had let hers grow for 368 days. Time for a haircut; and so the Year of Biblical Womanhood concludes in a hydraulic chair in a hair salon.
This book is entertaining, at times flippant, and without a doubt, highly marketable. It also fails to revere the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God. In her conclusion she reiterates the culturally conditioned character of the Bible. However, Rachel says she’s not finished with the Bible, and let’s hope the future brings her a blessing from God’s Word.
***
FN1: Editorial note: link is provided for information, not endorsement of everything the Kellers teach.
***
(This is a guest post.)
-TurretinFan
AUGUST
A month of Silence, in which Rachel critiques the Apostle Paul (and of course, by implication, the Holy Spirit) for two passages: 1 Timothy 2:11-12, verses saying that a woman should learn in quietness and submission and not teach and/or assume authority over a man; and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, verses that say the same thing, adding that women who have questions should ask their husbands at home, because women shouldn’t speak in the church.
It seems that Ms. Evans understands the importance of context in Biblical interpretation, for she mentioned it in a previous chapter, so it is surprising that she does not deal with the verses 13 and 14 in 1 Timothy 2 which follow the first set of verses she cites. Here the Apostle Paul gives the reason for the teaching: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” So here we have two separate reasons: the order of creation and aptitude for deception displayed at the Fall. One conservative commentator suggests that since the woman was deceived into sin, she was less culpable than Adam who went into transgression with his eyes wide open. Whatever you think of this comment, it is indisputable that the reason God gives for women to not be teachers and authorities in churches is based on two historical incidents: the Creation and the Fall.
Evans views New Testament epistles as “letters, broken pieces of correspondence between early Christians, dating back thousands of years,” clearly once again impugning the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. This is really the key to her errors. There are differences among believers about a number of things such as forms of church government, mode and type of baptism, worship song, etc. This is undeniable, and in this life in which we see “in a glass darkly” it is hardly avoidable. Yet these differences can be accepted graciously if those who hold to the different views share a view of Scripture that acknowledges it as infallible and inerrant. But when Scripture is no longer believed to be God-breathed and therefore without error, one’s conclusions become suspect. One may arrive at “conservative” conclusions even with unsound, liberal assumptions (an accusation sometimes leveled against scholar-theologian F.F. Bruce). Nevertheless, a high view of Scripture is warranted by Scripture itself!
One of what Evans calls “the embarrassing bits” of the Bible is Titus 1:12 which she quotes as saying, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This (partial) quotation is followed by a few not very funny, sarcastic remarks; however, she once again neglected her own rule about context-- she left out the beginning of the sentence, “One of them, a prophet of their own, said…” Kathy Keller did a good job reviewing the book on the Gospel Coalition website [FN1], making mention of Evans’ glaring omission.
And when Rachel says she never once heard a sermon preached on this passage, may we not conclude that she just ought to get out more or go to better churches? Surely SermonAudio.com is easy enough to use.
She constructs a straw man argument next by saying, “we dishonor the original intent and purpose of the Epistles when we assume they were written in a vacuum for the purpose of filling our calendars and bumper stickers.” No doubt people use them that way, but who would assume they were written with such an intent and in a vacuum? For a few much more cogent comments about placarding Bible verses without context, please see Rosaria Butterfield’s Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, pp. 66-67, a book which takes the Bible’s inerrancy and inspiration quite seriously.
The next part of the book gets really interesting. I’d love to know who originated the story, but here are the key elements of the plot:
churches of Ephesus and Corinth attracted a lot of women, particularly widows…of particular concern to Paul was a group of young widows who had infiltrated the church and developed a reputation for dressing promiscuously, sleeping around, gossiping, spreading unorthodox ideas, interrupting church services with questions, mooching off the church’s widow fund and generally making common floozies of themselves (1 Timothy 5)I am not making this up; it’s on page 261. This is how she, quoting Scott McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet, reconciles that some women could prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:4) and others were to keep silent. She concludes, “Obviously Paul didn’t have a problem with women teaching in general” because of Priscilla and Timothy’s mother and grandmother. Did Priscilla teach in the church? Did Timothy’s mother and grandmother teach in the church? Did women who prophesied (in fulfillment of Joel 2:28) teach? Or did they utter what the Holy Spirit gave them by inspiration? These are important questions Ms. Evans leaves unanswered.
The latter part of the chapter covers her visits to 1) a Benedictine monastery in Alabama; and 2) a Quaker Meeting in West Knoxville, Tennessee. Nothing of much interest happened, except she learned that wearing heels in a monastery is distracting so she switched to flats for the Quaker meeting. An important lesson, should any ladies reading this decide to make such visits themselves.
SEPTEMBER
The keynote for the last month of Rachel’s Biblical Year is “Grace” and the key verse is “On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts.” What follows is her comical foray into finding a shofar (ram’s horn), learning to sound it, and then proceeding to keep the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), which included baking challah and less traditionally, making a New Year’s Resolution List. In the coming year she would: try a new recipe a week, eat more ethically (seriously!), embrace the prospect of motherhood, identify and praise women of valor, nurture the contemplative impulse, make room for ritual and remembrance, champion women leaders in the Church, partner with World Vision to work for the women’s empowerment and education worldwide, and honor Dan (her husband).
She also had a Tashlich ceremony, dating back, she says, to the Middle Ages, in which “the sins of the repentant are ceremonially cast into the currents of God’s grace.” She ties her conclusion to her introduction: 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 commended long hair for women; Rachel had let hers grow for 368 days. Time for a haircut; and so the Year of Biblical Womanhood concludes in a hydraulic chair in a hair salon.
This book is entertaining, at times flippant, and without a doubt, highly marketable. It also fails to revere the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God. In her conclusion she reiterates the culturally conditioned character of the Bible. However, Rachel says she’s not finished with the Bible, and let’s hope the future brings her a blessing from God’s Word.
***
FN1: Editorial note: link is provided for information, not endorsement of everything the Kellers teach.
***
(This is a guest post.)
-TurretinFan
Douglas Wilson vs. Andrew Sullivan on "Gay Marriage"
Doug Wilson has posted the gist of his prepared remarks from a debate with Andrew Sullivan on the topic of so-called "gay marriage." (link to remarks) In general, I would agree with what Wilson said - although I cannot confirm his positive comments on Sullivan's behavior (as I did not witness the debate).
Wilson has a great way with words, a gift I would love to obtain. For example:
-TurretinFan
Wilson has a great way with words, a gift I would love to obtain. For example:
As Dan Phillips has aptly noted, the most offensive verse in the Bible is not to be found in Leviticus or Deuteronomy with laws concerning homosexuals. It is not to be found in the New Testament when Paul tells wives to be submissive to their own husbands. It is not to be found in the places commanding the Amalekites to be smitten. The most offensive verse in the Bible is the very first one—in the beginning God created the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1). This means that there are only two ways to go. We can work to discover the meaning of the world around us, a meaning embedded there by God. Or we can rebel against that meaning, and try to roll our own. Once we have rolled it, we usually try to smoke it.This observation is really central to most of the interaction with non-Christianity - from Atheism/Agnosticism to Roman Catholicism. Our understanding of the world needs to proceed from the revelation God has provided, and if we don't do that we end up victims of our own foolishness.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
June/July of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)
The following is part six of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.
JUNE
We feel that we’ve gotten to the crux of the matter this month with a topic of “Submission.” Early on Evans suggests that passages on this topic in both Peter’s and Paul’s writings (1 Peter 3:1-2, and Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22-23) are in fact not normative and that conservative evangelicals are wrong to assume so. Again, this is another slam on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Narratives do not necessarily describe normative behavior, but certainly exhortations and commands do. The way out of this conundrum for Ms. Evans is to suggest -- like liberal commentators before her -- that these passages on wifely submission are either preceded by or followed by instructions on slaves submitting to their masters, and, as she says, “the implications are astounding.”
Again she draws a wrong conclusion: that anyone who believes in wifely submission therefore must also agree with slavery, and slavery of a first-century type. These verses, she tells us, are just the Christian spin on Greco-Roman household codes which gave men unilateral authority over wives, slaves and children. Perhaps without realizing it here she denies the Holy Spirit-inspired character of the Word of God. She then goes on to quote verses that talk about living as free people, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves (1 Peter 2:16) and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21) and calls these words “subversive” ones, lying “beneath the seemingly acquiescent text” as if the Bible carries with it a hidden code. This is just nonsense. According to Timothy G. Gombis of Cedarville University (link):
Next, if Ms. Evans’ quotations are correct, I agree with her that Raymond Ortlund and John Piper in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, seem to do a bit of stretching Scripture to arrive at their conclusions. Piper talks about the impropriety of female city planners or female officials at sporting events, a venture into left field in my opinion [Fn1]. The Bible is clear enough with what it says, without speculating where it is silent.
Another of Evans’ targets is Debi Pearl and her book, Created to be His Helpmeet. Even if Debi Pearl represents an extreme (as she is presented), that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with Rachel Evans. There’s good stuff outside of the two.
JULY
“What does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8) God’s justice is an attribute that He expects His followers to personally appropriate. Clearly justice is required by our Lord: justice in witness bearing, in commerce, and in personal relationships. This chapter of Evans’ book is devoted to this concept. With that there is no problem. But note the following: after citing several Old Testament passages, she begins to talk about Jesus who is “committed…to these central Jewish teachings…” as if Jesus Himself is not God, the Word of God incarnate! She paints Him as a Jewish rabbi of the first century who continues the teachings of the Old Testament prophets, rather -- I suppose -- the way the Islamic religion pictures Him.[FN2]
She indicts a shallow evangelicalism, one which will even listen to unbelievers, even cultists, to tell them what to do religiously: she refers to Glenn Beck (Mormon) telling Christians to leave churches that advocate social justice. This is bizarre. Never having read or listened to Glenn Beck I can only take her word for it and shake my head in amazement. I think Christians may be spending more time with talk radio than the Bible. This is a shame -- even if the "social justice" churches are bad, the reason for leaving them has to be Scripture, not Political Activists.
But a little religious history may be in order. Early in the 20th century the liberal churches became centers that did barely anything but advocate social agendas. The Gospel was nearly gone from their churches. The words were the same but the meanings were different. They saw no need for redemption, for propitiation, for substitution for they were not in touch with the concept and reality of sin against a holy God. For further reading, The Presbyterian Controversy by Bradley J. Longfield is recommended (link to Amazon).
Churches and Christians that are true to the Bible need not fear to advocate social justice, properly defined [FN3]. In fact, most conservative churches I know of do just that. They are on the frontlines speaking for the unborn, the most helpless segment of our society, seeking to save those lives. Francis Schaeffer laid the groundwork for a resurgence of Biblical action with A Christian Manifesto (Amazon link). Many have heeded his call. He asserted that Christianity is not conservative; it is revolutionary. Speaking of two camps, the New Left and the Establishment elite, he suggested that at times we will be "co-belligerents" with one or the other, but not true allies with either of them. Schaeffer spoke of "a growing Establishment totalitarianism" and warned that "evangelicals will slide without thought into accepting the Establishment elite." If this generation does not know Schaeffer, it needs to get in touch with his writings.
The Biblical woman for the month of July is “Junia, the Apostle” whom Rachel calls “perhaps the most silenced woman in the Bible.” Following Scott McKnight of The Blue Parakeet fame, she trashes the idea that “of note among the apostles” means “well known among the apostles.” She repeats McKnight’s argument that Junia (female) was changed to Junias (male) because the copyist deemed it unacceptable for a woman to be an apostle! But James R. White notes:
***
FN1: Editorial note -- although the pun is excellent, T-Fan would generally concur with folks like Piper.
FN2: Editorial note -- please bear in mind that "justice" is one thing and "social justice" is another thing.
FN3: Editorial note -- i.e. not Marxism, or other hijacked meanings of the term, which are rampant today.
(This is a guest post.)
-TurretinFan
JUNE
We feel that we’ve gotten to the crux of the matter this month with a topic of “Submission.” Early on Evans suggests that passages on this topic in both Peter’s and Paul’s writings (1 Peter 3:1-2, and Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22-23) are in fact not normative and that conservative evangelicals are wrong to assume so. Again, this is another slam on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Narratives do not necessarily describe normative behavior, but certainly exhortations and commands do. The way out of this conundrum for Ms. Evans is to suggest -- like liberal commentators before her -- that these passages on wifely submission are either preceded by or followed by instructions on slaves submitting to their masters, and, as she says, “the implications are astounding.”
Again she draws a wrong conclusion: that anyone who believes in wifely submission therefore must also agree with slavery, and slavery of a first-century type. These verses, she tells us, are just the Christian spin on Greco-Roman household codes which gave men unilateral authority over wives, slaves and children. Perhaps without realizing it here she denies the Holy Spirit-inspired character of the Word of God. She then goes on to quote verses that talk about living as free people, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves (1 Peter 2:16) and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21) and calls these words “subversive” ones, lying “beneath the seemingly acquiescent text” as if the Bible carries with it a hidden code. This is just nonsense. According to Timothy G. Gombis of Cedarville University (link):
After his harsh critique of pagan culture throughout the present section of the letter, it is hardly credible to claim that Paul is attempting to find common ground between Christian communities and the surrounding culture. Far from minimizing the differences between what he calls the Old Humanity (Ephesians 4:22) and the New Humanity (Ephesians 2:15; 4:24), Paul is stressing the absolute incompatibility of the two spheres.His entire article, published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society makes worthwhile reading.
Next, if Ms. Evans’ quotations are correct, I agree with her that Raymond Ortlund and John Piper in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, seem to do a bit of stretching Scripture to arrive at their conclusions. Piper talks about the impropriety of female city planners or female officials at sporting events, a venture into left field in my opinion [Fn1]. The Bible is clear enough with what it says, without speculating where it is silent.
Another of Evans’ targets is Debi Pearl and her book, Created to be His Helpmeet. Even if Debi Pearl represents an extreme (as she is presented), that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with Rachel Evans. There’s good stuff outside of the two.
JULY
“What does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8) God’s justice is an attribute that He expects His followers to personally appropriate. Clearly justice is required by our Lord: justice in witness bearing, in commerce, and in personal relationships. This chapter of Evans’ book is devoted to this concept. With that there is no problem. But note the following: after citing several Old Testament passages, she begins to talk about Jesus who is “committed…to these central Jewish teachings…” as if Jesus Himself is not God, the Word of God incarnate! She paints Him as a Jewish rabbi of the first century who continues the teachings of the Old Testament prophets, rather -- I suppose -- the way the Islamic religion pictures Him.[FN2]
She indicts a shallow evangelicalism, one which will even listen to unbelievers, even cultists, to tell them what to do religiously: she refers to Glenn Beck (Mormon) telling Christians to leave churches that advocate social justice. This is bizarre. Never having read or listened to Glenn Beck I can only take her word for it and shake my head in amazement. I think Christians may be spending more time with talk radio than the Bible. This is a shame -- even if the "social justice" churches are bad, the reason for leaving them has to be Scripture, not Political Activists.
But a little religious history may be in order. Early in the 20th century the liberal churches became centers that did barely anything but advocate social agendas. The Gospel was nearly gone from their churches. The words were the same but the meanings were different. They saw no need for redemption, for propitiation, for substitution for they were not in touch with the concept and reality of sin against a holy God. For further reading, The Presbyterian Controversy by Bradley J. Longfield is recommended (link to Amazon).
Churches and Christians that are true to the Bible need not fear to advocate social justice, properly defined [FN3]. In fact, most conservative churches I know of do just that. They are on the frontlines speaking for the unborn, the most helpless segment of our society, seeking to save those lives. Francis Schaeffer laid the groundwork for a resurgence of Biblical action with A Christian Manifesto (Amazon link). Many have heeded his call. He asserted that Christianity is not conservative; it is revolutionary. Speaking of two camps, the New Left and the Establishment elite, he suggested that at times we will be "co-belligerents" with one or the other, but not true allies with either of them. Schaeffer spoke of "a growing Establishment totalitarianism" and warned that "evangelicals will slide without thought into accepting the Establishment elite." If this generation does not know Schaeffer, it needs to get in touch with his writings.
The Biblical woman for the month of July is “Junia, the Apostle” whom Rachel calls “perhaps the most silenced woman in the Bible.” Following Scott McKnight of The Blue Parakeet fame, she trashes the idea that “of note among the apostles” means “well known among the apostles.” She repeats McKnight’s argument that Junia (female) was changed to Junias (male) because the copyist deemed it unacceptable for a woman to be an apostle! But James R. White notes:
How does McKnight know the intentions and beliefs of ancient scribes? While it is common enough for modern textual scholars to engage in time-traveling mind-reading today, neither McKnight, nor anyone else, can tell us with any certainty what any particular unknown and unnamed scribe believed in the ancient world. In fact, both sources cited in McKnight’s notes indicate that the situation is significantly more complex and nuanced than his discussion indicates. The reality is that nobody changed any spelling at all. The difference between Junia and Junias is a matter of accenting, and the earliest manuscripts do not have accent marks. Hence, McKnight’s assertion that this text was changed “because women aren’t supposed to be ‘apostles’” evaporates on examination, as does much of his larger argument.I don’t think there was any conspiracy to keep the apostles all male. After all, the word “apostle” can mean messenger, without any connotation of ordination. There are others in the New Testament called “apostles” yet were not numbered with the 12 (or thirteen), such as Silas, Apollos and Barnabas. Yet the solution may be just as White explains above—a matter of accent marks in the earliest manuscripts.
***
FN1: Editorial note -- although the pun is excellent, T-Fan would generally concur with folks like Piper.
FN2: Editorial note -- please bear in mind that "justice" is one thing and "social justice" is another thing.
FN3: Editorial note -- i.e. not Marxism, or other hijacked meanings of the term, which are rampant today.
(This is a guest post.)
-TurretinFan
Response to "Ten Things I wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality"
There's a list of "Ten Things" that the author states he wishes "the Church" knew about what he characterizes as "homosexuality." I'll address each item in turn.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
b) Jesus even specifically mentioned the example of Sodom as a group particularly worthy of judgment.
Luke 10:12
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
c) Jesus affirmed the whole moral law of the old testament, both by not destroying it, and by instructing his disciples to obey his commandments.
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Recall:
Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
d) Whether it is "essential" or not is not the point. The central message of Jesus was to repent (of sin) and believe the Gospel. The emphasis was clearly on the gospel, yet it would be foolishness to ignore repentance from sin. Understanding repentance from sin requires that we recognize what sin is. That applies to a broad range of sins, many of which Jesus did not discuss in depth.
a) It's not in itself persecution to tell people to repent of their sins; and
2) It's not in itself persecution to prosecute criminal behavior, including criminal sexual behavior.
b) Manna was sent from heaven. So was the moral law delivered to Moses. If you recognized that, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
c) Manna is not just whatever you want it to be, and neither is truth.
b) People who want the right to call their fornication "marriage" are not asking for the rights that I have. I don't have the "right" to call my fornication "marriage," and neither does anyone else.
c) People who want the right to marry same sex are not asking for the rights that I have. I have the right to marry opposite sex, and they have that same right - they just have no desire to exercise that right.
b) It's not just our personal religious view - it's the view of our churches.
c) It's also not just our personal religious view, our the view of our churches, but it is an actual matter of fact, revealed by God.
b) Homosexuals don't usually want to marry (in the normal sense of that word), because they are not interested in the opposite-sex obligations of marriage.
c) Even if in some sense marriage is a "civil right," surely does not mean that there cannot be limitations on it.
Matthew 7:1-2
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
So is this text:
John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
And so is this text:
1 Corinthians 6:2
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
And most people who appeal to the first one are not even aware of the other two, or the proper harmony amongst them.
A full explanation would exceed the scope of this post, but suffice to say that Matthew 7:1-2 does not mean that we cannot or should not pass moral judgments on people or behaviors. If it did, that would mean we cannot say that murder is wrong, or say that thieves are sinning in what they are doing. That's an absurd result, and it should demonstrate the absurdity of applying the verse to say that we can't say that criminal sexual acts are sinful.
-TurretinFan
1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.a) Jesus did mention the subject of sexual sin, and he did so repeatedly. For example:
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
b) Jesus even specifically mentioned the example of Sodom as a group particularly worthy of judgment.
Luke 10:12
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
c) Jesus affirmed the whole moral law of the old testament, both by not destroying it, and by instructing his disciples to obey his commandments.
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Recall:
Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
d) Whether it is "essential" or not is not the point. The central message of Jesus was to repent (of sin) and believe the Gospel. The emphasis was clearly on the gospel, yet it would be foolishness to ignore repentance from sin. Understanding repentance from sin requires that we recognize what sin is. That applies to a broad range of sins, many of which Jesus did not discuss in depth.
2. You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.This point is somewhat vague, but the obvious counter-points are:
a) It's not in itself persecution to tell people to repent of their sins; and
2) It's not in itself persecution to prosecute criminal behavior, including criminal sexual behavior.
3. Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you are with.a) Truth is absolute and timeless. It doesn't get "better with age," but it does stay true.
b) Manna was sent from heaven. So was the moral law delivered to Moses. If you recognized that, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
c) Manna is not just whatever you want it to be, and neither is truth.
4. You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.a) People who want the "right" to sleep with someone to whom they are not married are not asking for rights that I have. I have the right to sleep with my spouse, and not with anyone else.
b) People who want the right to call their fornication "marriage" are not asking for the rights that I have. I don't have the "right" to call my fornication "marriage," and neither does anyone else.
c) People who want the right to marry same sex are not asking for the rights that I have. I have the right to marry opposite sex, and they have that same right - they just have no desire to exercise that right.
5. It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.a) I'm pretty sure one of the major reasons for having rights to express people's personal views is exactly because they bother other people. If they didn't bother other people, why would the state need to protect such speech?
b) It's not just our personal religious view - it's the view of our churches.
c) It's also not just our personal religious view, our the view of our churches, but it is an actual matter of fact, revealed by God.
6. Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.a) This argument seems to be based on the particular cultural conventions of modern Western society. Modern society is not a source of truth - it's traditions and norms shift over time.
b) Homosexuals don't usually want to marry (in the normal sense of that word), because they are not interested in the opposite-sex obligations of marriage.
c) Even if in some sense marriage is a "civil right," surely does not mean that there cannot be limitations on it.
7. If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.Don't worry, that's not the needle of our moral compass.
8. To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.It is always sad, but not surprising, when people are so morally bankrupt that they think the civil laws of Leviticus are bad laws - evil laws. But what is the basis for that moral judgment?
9. If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.Again, what is the standard of what is "right"? If the Bible is the standard, it is those who are exalting homosexuality that will be embarrassed on the day of judgment.
10. When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.This text is an important text:
Matthew 7:1-2
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
So is this text:
John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
And so is this text:
1 Corinthians 6:2
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
And most people who appeal to the first one are not even aware of the other two, or the proper harmony amongst them.
A full explanation would exceed the scope of this post, but suffice to say that Matthew 7:1-2 does not mean that we cannot or should not pass moral judgments on people or behaviors. If it did, that would mean we cannot say that murder is wrong, or say that thieves are sinning in what they are doing. That's an absurd result, and it should demonstrate the absurdity of applying the verse to say that we can't say that criminal sexual acts are sinful.
-TurretinFan
Monday, February 25, 2013
Garry Wills - Why Priests? - Introduction
Dr. Garry Wills is a lay Roman Catholic. His PhD in classics is from Yale (1961) and he taught history for 18 years at Johns Hopkins University. The Los Angeles Times describes him as "American Catholicism's most formidable law scholar," and the New York Times describes him as "One of the country's most distinguished intellectuals." Wills' "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America," won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993. In 2008, John L. Allen, Jr. described Wills as "perhaps the most distinguished Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years" in the National Catholic Reporter. His writings generally focus on historical topics, many of them on the intersection of history and religion. (I wonder if calling him a "Roman Catholic Darryl Hart" would be taken as the mutual compliment it would be intended to be?)
Gary Wills' proposal is going to be shocking to traditionalist Roman Catholics, partly because it would require a radical change in Roman Catholicism, and partly because that radical change would like the Reformation, at least as to a substantial part of its ecclesiology (his position was compared to that of Luther in the New York Times).
We hold to the priesthood of believers, and maintain that Christians have direct access to God through the sole mediation of Christ. Thus, we reject the idea of merely human priests, affirming instead the apostolic model of a church without priests.
Wills' proposal is one that is surprisingly ecumenical. While there would still be certain issues regarding worship that would need to be addressed, removal of the priesthood would be a major stepping stone toward Roman Catholicism being in ecumenical union with "Protestants."
Will Will's proposal be adopted? It seems unlikely. Those in power in Rome have every vested interest in maintaining the structures of power that require a priesthood.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I seriously doubt that any of Garry Wills' books (from his prize winning books, to his least well recognized books, and including this book) has been submitted for nihil obstat or imprimatur. Naturally, a book (like Why Priests?) that argues as one of its main points that there shouldn't be priests, is not a good candidate for either certification.
Some think that the dwindling number of priests can be remedied by the addition of women priests, or married priests, or openly gay priests. In fact, the real solution is: no priests. It should not be difficult to imagine a Christianity without priests. Read carefully through the entire New Testament and you will not find an individual human priest mentioned in the Christian communities (only Jewish priests in service to the Temple). Only one book of the New Testament, the Letter to Hebrews, mentions an individual priest, and he is unique -- Jesus. He has no followers in that office, according to the Letter.(Why Priests, Introduction, p. 2)
It is not surprising, then, that some Protestant communities are able to be good Christians without having any priests. Some priests of my youth mocked them for that reason. They said a Protestant ceremony was just a town meeting, without the sacramental consecration and consumption of the body and blood of Jesus. When I was told one of my pastors that I had admired the sermon of a visiting priest, he said I should not be looking to have my ears ticked, like some Protestant, but should concentrate on the mystery of the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, he was implying, we would have no religion at all.
Gary Wills' proposal is going to be shocking to traditionalist Roman Catholics, partly because it would require a radical change in Roman Catholicism, and partly because that radical change would like the Reformation, at least as to a substantial part of its ecclesiology (his position was compared to that of Luther in the New York Times).
We hold to the priesthood of believers, and maintain that Christians have direct access to God through the sole mediation of Christ. Thus, we reject the idea of merely human priests, affirming instead the apostolic model of a church without priests.
Wills' proposal is one that is surprisingly ecumenical. While there would still be certain issues regarding worship that would need to be addressed, removal of the priesthood would be a major stepping stone toward Roman Catholicism being in ecumenical union with "Protestants."
Will Will's proposal be adopted? It seems unlikely. Those in power in Rome have every vested interest in maintaining the structures of power that require a priesthood.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I seriously doubt that any of Garry Wills' books (from his prize winning books, to his least well recognized books, and including this book) has been submitted for nihil obstat or imprimatur. Naturally, a book (like Why Priests?) that argues as one of its main points that there shouldn't be priests, is not a good candidate for either certification.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Caners on the John Ankerberg Show - Part 2
I'm not sure whether John Ankerberg plans to archive these videos on the web, as it appears that the plan is to offer these videos on DVD in exchange for a "gift" of $39 (link to page where video can be seen). Thus, it makes sense to discuss these videos in series as they come out.
Biography/Autobiography
The intro has the same line about growing up in Columbus and having a mosque-building father (which has already been discussed here). Numerous times in this section John Ankerberg asks the Caners to describe their own experience. In most cases, the Caners deflect back to general statements about Muslims.
Around 6:40 into the clip, Emir suggests that knowing God loved him, rather than simply his deeds, was a breakthrough for him.
Around 7 minutes in, Emir suggests that the tension between Justice and Mercy was one of the reasons for his move from Islam to Christianity.
Around 17:15 into the clip, Ergun discusses Clarence Miller posing the liar, lunatic, Lord trilemma to him (without the liar branch, naturally, since Ergun was claiming that he respected Jesus).
There's not much else to say about this episode, so I'll desist here.
-TurretinFan
Biography/Autobiography
The intro has the same line about growing up in Columbus and having a mosque-building father (which has already been discussed here). Numerous times in this section John Ankerberg asks the Caners to describe their own experience. In most cases, the Caners deflect back to general statements about Muslims.
Around 6:40 into the clip, Emir suggests that knowing God loved him, rather than simply his deeds, was a breakthrough for him.
Around 7 minutes in, Emir suggests that the tension between Justice and Mercy was one of the reasons for his move from Islam to Christianity.
Around 17:15 into the clip, Ergun discusses Clarence Miller posing the liar, lunatic, Lord trilemma to him (without the liar branch, naturally, since Ergun was claiming that he respected Jesus).
There's not much else to say about this episode, so I'll desist here.
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 22, 2013
Reformed Apologetics and Scripture
Dr. Scott Oliphint has a short lecture (about 20 minutes or so) titled "Apologetics and the Doctrine of Scripture," in which he explains Reformed Apologetics. In Oliphint's view, Reformed (he likes the label "Covenantal") Apologetics are simply the apologetic implications of Reformed theology. In other words, theology informs apologetics - the two are not entirely separate endeavors. But what are the apologetic implications of Reformed theology? The primary implications relate to an epistemology of divine condescension.
God is known by Revelation (both general revelation and special revelation). Creation is related to God (either positively or negatively). Thus, a right understanding of Creation as a whole requires a right understanding of God, since the two are related. A right understanding of the relationship between Creation and God is obtained by Revelation. Since the Revelation comes from God, it is necessarily true. The clearest form of Revelation is verbal revelation, and indeed it is verbal revelation that serves as the basis for understanding general revelation. Scripture is the verbal revelation we currently have.
Therefore, in apologetics, as in evangelism, we present the truth of Scripture as against the claims of rival systems. Since the rival systems are necessarily false, the apologist's job is to help the unbeliever understand that the rival system is false, as well as to help the unbeliever understand that the Scripture is true.
In other words, the fundamental positive assertions of Reformed apologetics are (1) God has spoken and (2) it is our (humans') privilege and duty to do what God has commanded us.
William Edgar explains (here) a little different aspect of Reformed apologetics. He explains a general approach:
1) We acknowledge that unbelievers hold much true knowledge (knowledge that is objectively true).
2) We explain to the unbelievers that some of their beliefs are inconsistent with this true knowledge.
3) We invite the unbeliever to learn/believe/experience the truth of Scripture.
Of course, the steps aren't necessarily in that order, but rather are a general outline of the aspects of conversation we use in evangelism and apologetics. The steps are premised on our position that we know the truth because God has revealed it to us in Scripture.
I would add that this should govern our apologetic priorities, our apologetic targets, and our apologetic balance. For example, the authority of Scripture (as against that of the Roman magisterium, or that of the alleged prophets Mohammed or Joseph Smith) is a high apologetic priority, whereas pointing out the clash between Islam or traditional Roman Catholicism and post-modern ethics is something that would be a very low priority. That's partly because post-modern ethics are not especially faithful to Biblical ethics (even though they haven't entirely eradicated the light of nature). On apologetic balance, the point is that while there is a time for negative, internal critiques of other systems, this negative material must be supplemented by a positive presentation of the revealed truth of God in Scripture -- not necessarily in every presentation, but certainly not rarely.
-TurretinFan
God is known by Revelation (both general revelation and special revelation). Creation is related to God (either positively or negatively). Thus, a right understanding of Creation as a whole requires a right understanding of God, since the two are related. A right understanding of the relationship between Creation and God is obtained by Revelation. Since the Revelation comes from God, it is necessarily true. The clearest form of Revelation is verbal revelation, and indeed it is verbal revelation that serves as the basis for understanding general revelation. Scripture is the verbal revelation we currently have.
Therefore, in apologetics, as in evangelism, we present the truth of Scripture as against the claims of rival systems. Since the rival systems are necessarily false, the apologist's job is to help the unbeliever understand that the rival system is false, as well as to help the unbeliever understand that the Scripture is true.
In other words, the fundamental positive assertions of Reformed apologetics are (1) God has spoken and (2) it is our (humans') privilege and duty to do what God has commanded us.
William Edgar explains (here) a little different aspect of Reformed apologetics. He explains a general approach:
1) We acknowledge that unbelievers hold much true knowledge (knowledge that is objectively true).
2) We explain to the unbelievers that some of their beliefs are inconsistent with this true knowledge.
3) We invite the unbeliever to learn/believe/experience the truth of Scripture.
Of course, the steps aren't necessarily in that order, but rather are a general outline of the aspects of conversation we use in evangelism and apologetics. The steps are premised on our position that we know the truth because God has revealed it to us in Scripture.
I would add that this should govern our apologetic priorities, our apologetic targets, and our apologetic balance. For example, the authority of Scripture (as against that of the Roman magisterium, or that of the alleged prophets Mohammed or Joseph Smith) is a high apologetic priority, whereas pointing out the clash between Islam or traditional Roman Catholicism and post-modern ethics is something that would be a very low priority. That's partly because post-modern ethics are not especially faithful to Biblical ethics (even though they haven't entirely eradicated the light of nature). On apologetic balance, the point is that while there is a time for negative, internal critiques of other systems, this negative material must be supplemented by a positive presentation of the revealed truth of God in Scripture -- not necessarily in every presentation, but certainly not rarely.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Darryl Hart on American Roman Catholicism
Darryl Hart at "Old Life" provides some quotations regarding the uniquely American experience of Roman Catholicism and how it hasn't really taken political root (link). I would add that Roman Catholicism does tend to exhibit a degree of syncretism. Thus, in its American embodiment it tends to be rather Protestant, but it has other flavors in other countries. For example, in Brazil, the Marxist influence is hard to deny (and is the topic of a significant amount of frustration amongst more traditional folks there).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
April/May of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)
The following is part five of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.
APRIL
There is not a lot to say about this month and its topic of Purity. The author misses the point of the Old Testament ceremonial regulations found in the following passages: Leviticus 15:19, Exodus 13:6-10, and Exodus 12:17. She consults with an Orthodox Jewish woman who gives her the Jewish scoop on these things, but the point of these laws is missed because their typical nature is not seen. The antidote to this chapter is to read and study 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, as well as to thoroughly study the book of Hebrews. An excellent commentary to study on this subject is Andrew Bonar's commentary on Leviticus (or click here for the free Google book version).
MAY
Fertility is the focus of this chapter and Evans’ take on topics like parenting, motherhood, large families, and babyhood comes into focus pretty clearly. First, Rachel reads a stack of parenting books, from William Sears and his view of attachment parenting to Ezzo's oddly detached view of parenting in On Becoming Baby Wise. Strangely, Rachel does not come down on either side. For a woman who purports to value discernment of biblical things I was surprised that she did not do more research on the nature of the Ezzo’s teachings. "Baby Wise" has been associated with ill health in babies (by mainstream pediatrics) and divided at least one church. I would have liked to have seen some real interaction with the Ezzo movement.
Next, she describes the “Quiverfull lifestyle” and contrasts her poverty-stricken friend from a large family with the Duggar family, now with 19 children and doing very well financially and apparently in every other way. But the quote from Jim Bob Duggar, “People think we are overpopulating the world. We are just following our convictions” seems fair enough. It doesn’t sound like a plot to make every family embrace their ultimate fertility to me. Do some people like to impose their “lifestyle” on others? I can think of lots of people who do, but I know of nobody who has tried to impose the large family lifestyle on others. I think that the Quiverfull movement is wrong on several counts, but no one is forcing me to join it.
This is the month Rachel and Dan receive via UPS their vinyl “baby,” a creepy marketing toy/ploy intended to get people topay money experience what it’s like to have a baby around the house before they take the leap and become pregnant. It makes for a lot of creepy jokes about “Chip” (aka “Chucky”) before he’s mailed back to the rental company.
****
(This is a guest post.)
-TurretinFan
APRIL
There is not a lot to say about this month and its topic of Purity. The author misses the point of the Old Testament ceremonial regulations found in the following passages: Leviticus 15:19, Exodus 13:6-10, and Exodus 12:17. She consults with an Orthodox Jewish woman who gives her the Jewish scoop on these things, but the point of these laws is missed because their typical nature is not seen. The antidote to this chapter is to read and study 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, as well as to thoroughly study the book of Hebrews. An excellent commentary to study on this subject is Andrew Bonar's commentary on Leviticus (or click here for the free Google book version).
MAY
Fertility is the focus of this chapter and Evans’ take on topics like parenting, motherhood, large families, and babyhood comes into focus pretty clearly. First, Rachel reads a stack of parenting books, from William Sears and his view of attachment parenting to Ezzo's oddly detached view of parenting in On Becoming Baby Wise. Strangely, Rachel does not come down on either side. For a woman who purports to value discernment of biblical things I was surprised that she did not do more research on the nature of the Ezzo’s teachings. "Baby Wise" has been associated with ill health in babies (by mainstream pediatrics) and divided at least one church. I would have liked to have seen some real interaction with the Ezzo movement.
Next, she describes the “Quiverfull lifestyle” and contrasts her poverty-stricken friend from a large family with the Duggar family, now with 19 children and doing very well financially and apparently in every other way. But the quote from Jim Bob Duggar, “People think we are overpopulating the world. We are just following our convictions” seems fair enough. It doesn’t sound like a plot to make every family embrace their ultimate fertility to me. Do some people like to impose their “lifestyle” on others? I can think of lots of people who do, but I know of nobody who has tried to impose the large family lifestyle on others. I think that the Quiverfull movement is wrong on several counts, but no one is forcing me to join it.
This is the month Rachel and Dan receive via UPS their vinyl “baby,” a creepy marketing toy/ploy intended to get people to
****
(This is a guest post.)
-TurretinFan
Sunday, February 17, 2013
A Half Century for the Emergence of the Council
One of the supposed benefits of Rome's councils is that they allegedly provide a clarity that is missing from Scripture. But those who think this should consider Benedict XVI's comments on Vatican II:
If a council is so easily misrepresented and so widely misunderstood, even when its writings are all easily obtained, how is that supposed to be a solution to the problem of alleged ambiguity in Scripture?
-TurretinFan
I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers.(Original Link: Benedict XVI, "The Second Vatican Council, as I saw it" Updated Link: Meeting with the Parish Priests and Clergy of Rome, 14 February 2013 - the second ellipsis is part of the official text, the first is mine)
...
We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.
If a council is so easily misrepresented and so widely misunderstood, even when its writings are all easily obtained, how is that supposed to be a solution to the problem of alleged ambiguity in Scripture?
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 15, 2013
John the Lydian on Life in the Womb
John Lydus aka John the Lydian was a 6th century writer. He wrote a treatise, De Mensibus (on the Months), which is primarily a history of the different pagan festivals of the year. It is somewhat significant with respect to claims regarding the syncretism of Byzantine Christianity with respect to pagan festivals. Included in this discussion was an interesting set of comments on the beliefs of that day regarding infants in the womb:
Thanks very much to Roger Pearse for placing this in the public domain.
-TurretinFan
Those of the Romans who write natural history say that when seed is cast into the womb, on the third day it is transformed into blood and "paints" [Gk. διαζωγραφεῖν] the heart, which is said to be formed first and to die last. For if three is the beginning / ruling principle of numbers, and is an odd number, then consequently the beginning / ruling principle of birth [comes] from it. And on the ninth [day], it congeals and coagulates to form flesh and marrow; and on the 40th [day it is said] to be completed as a comprehensive form of configuration—to put it simply, a complete human being. Something similar to [these properties of] the days [holds true] in the case of the months. In the third month, [the fetus] held in the womb begins to move; and in the ninth month it is completely finished and hastens to come out.(John Lydus, De Mensibus, February)
...
After the pregnancy, they say that the newborn child is wrapped in swaddling clothes on the third [day], and that on the ninth [day] it becomes stronger and tolerates being touched; and on the 40th [day] it acquires the ability to laugh and it begins to recognize its mother.
Thanks very much to Roger Pearse for placing this in the public domain.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, February 14, 2013
The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath
The sabbath is a day of celebrating creation and redemption through rest from our ordinary work and worship of God.
Creation and Redemption can respectively be seen in the two versions of the fourth commandment:
We see this is in the positive example of the apostles:
The sabbath rest we have is just a shadow and type of the rest that is to come.
Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"
-TurretinFan
Creation and Redemption can respectively be seen in the two versions of the fourth commandment:
Exodus 20:11However, Christ Jesus did a new work of Creation and Redemption and completed that on the first day of the week, when he arose from grave. Accordingly, since that time, believers have fathered for worship on the first of the seven, rather than on the seventh of the seven.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Deuteronomy 5:15
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
We see this is in the positive example of the apostles:
John 20:19We also see this in the negative example of the apostles, namely that they did outreach to the Jews on the Jewish Sabbath:
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
1 Corinthians 16:2
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Acts 13:14In general, the sabbath day is a day of rest. However, the sabbath does not absolutely prohibit all work. For example works of necessity and mercy are lawful on the sabbath:
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Acts 16:13
And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Matthew 12:1-14The kind of work that is not appropriate for a day of rest is illustrated in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the post-exilic administration:
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, "Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day."
But he said unto them, "Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him."
And he said unto them, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." Then saith he to the man, "Stretch forth thine hand." And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Mark 2:23-28
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, "Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?"
And he said unto them, "Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" And he said unto them, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
Luke 6:1-11
And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, "Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?"
And Jesus answering them said, "Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?" And he said unto them, that the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, "Rise up, and stand forth in the midst." And he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, "I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?" And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, "Stretch forth thy hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.
John 5:5-16
And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, "Wilt thou be made whole?"
The impotent man answered him, "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me."
Jesus saith unto him, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk."
And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, "It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed."
He answered them, "He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk."
Then asked they him, "What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?"
And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
John 7:21-24
Jesus answered and said unto them, "I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
John 9:14-16
And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, "He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see."
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, "This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day."
Others said, "How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?"
And there was a division among them.
Exodus 16:22-25Nevertheless, these prohibitions should be understood contextually and as a restraint on work, not as fetters. Thus, for example, the Pharisees (and some modern Jews) overly rigidly interpreted the prohibition mentioned in Jeremiah, such as they considered the man carrying his bed to be sinning.
And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the Lord: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
Exodus 35:2-3
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
Numbers 15:32-36
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
Nehemiah 10:31
And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.
Nehemiah 13:15-21
In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, "What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath."
And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice.
Then I testified against them, and said unto them, "Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you." From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath.
Jeremiah 17:20-25
And say unto them, Hear ye the word of the Lord, ye kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by these gates: thus saith the Lord; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers. But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction. And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but hallow the sabbath day, to do no work therein; then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and this city shall remain for ever.
The sabbath rest we have is just a shadow and type of the rest that is to come.
Genesis 2:2-3By contrast, those who do not follow God will not have this rest, but will instead have eternal torment:
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Hebrews 3:11
So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
Hebrews 3:18
And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Hebrews 4:3-11
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."[Genesis 2:3] And in this place again, "If they shall enter into my rest." [Psalm 95:11] Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, "To day," after so long a time; as it is said, "To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." [Psalm 95:7] For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
Revelation 14:11So let us seek to enter into the ultimate Sabbath, the Lord's Day.
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"
-TurretinFan
February/March of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)
The following is part four of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.
FEBRUARY
Beauty is the topic of the month and here I think Rachel Evans makes some good points. She notes the odd, yet apparently not uncommon teaching of some evangelical pastors (among them Mark Driscoll) who seem to lay the blame for a husband's fornication exclusively on the wife’s “letting herself go” (getting fat, etc.). Dr. Laura Schlesinger has said the same thing, so it's not an exclusively Christian idea. Anecdotal evidence tells us that men stray from even the most amazing and beautiful wives in favor of less amazing and beautiful ones, e.g., Prince Charles’s wandering from Princess Diana for Camilla, a move which caused many men and women to scratch their heads in wonder. But Christians should know better than to blame the wife for the husband’s sin (or vice versa, for that matter). After all, James 1: 14-15 says,
Next, Ms. Evans talks about the foolishness of the “abstinence pledge” that she and countless others in evangelical churches have signed. According to her statistics, only 12% keep that promise. First of all, the whole idea of an abstinence pledge sounds a little odd—why just promise to abstain from sexual sin, but not lying, theft, etc. as well? In fact, when a person is converted, he is to confess Christ as Savior and Lord, i.e., King and Ruler of his life. He is not his own person, for he has been bought with a price, the price of Christ’s blood. So perhaps the answer to the 12% success rate is that churches contain many members or attenders who are not truly born again and therefore have not been radically transformed, or at least are not in the process of being radically transformed by the Word of God. A good read on this topic would be Finally Alive by John Piper (2009)(link to pdf - other versions).
Another resource that provides good counsel in the area of sexual purity is a chapter in Kevin deYoung’s book, The Hole in Our Holiness, pp. 107-122 which talks about the Bible’s “radically different sexual ethic” than the world’s Here is godly advice. A book quoted by deYoung that sounds very promising is Sex, Dating and Relationships: A Fresh Approach by Gerald Hiestand and Jay S. Thomas (2012).
Again, I agree with Ms. Evans’ statement that physical beauty is more an Old Testament thing than a New Testament one, a fact that has been noted by several traditional and conservative commentators.[FN2]
The woman of the month who gets several pages of coverage is Ruth the Moabitess. Here Evans takes a feminist view on the book of Ruth. No mention is made of Ruth calling Boaz “lord” which she does in 2:13, perhaps a mere slip on the part of Rachel. She claims that although Naomi advised Ruth that Boaz would “tell you what to do” (Ruth 3:2-4), in reality Ruth told Boaz what to do: she asked him to spread his cloak over her. But Boaz goes on and does tell Ruth what to do: “Stay here for the night and it shall be in the morning if [the kinsman-redeemer) will perform the part of a kinsman…” She refers to Naomi’s plan as “brazen” and mentions that “to uncover the feet” means to “uncover the genitals.”[FN3] A less dramatic understanding of the text might be to “lift up the clothes that are on,” which need not imply immodesty. Thus ends February.
MARCH
March is for Modesty! The “To Do” list includes: dressing modestly, wearing a head covering, wearing only skirts and dresses—no slacks or jeans; abstaining from wearing jewelry; and hanging out with the Amish.
Ms. Evans admits to being discouraged at several points during this year, in curling up in a fetal position, but her complaints are met with her husband’s reminder that she undertook all this as a result of a contract she willingly signed with the publisher, so she has only herself to blame. So after bit of icy coldness between the Dan and her, or a few episodes of The Twilight Zone, she continues.
This chapter owes a lot to Orthodox Jewish scholars and Evans’s Orthodox Jewish advisor/friend, Ahava. This is a mistake because Orthodox Judaism misses the point of much of the Old Testament. If they did not, they would be orthodox Christians. Again, there is a failure on the part of the author to distinguish between the Old and New economy and the differences between the ceremonial, the civil, and the moral law of God.
It was interesting to read of a 1944 “Marylike Modesty Crusade” an effort “to codify Pope Pius XI’s instructions regarding immodest dress,” an effort I had never heard of (perhaps not so surprising since I am a Protestant).[FN4] But much of the chapter is devoted to the Amish and their peculiarities.
I think that Evans could really not find too much fault with the call of the Bible to modesty, especially because that call is interpreted in a different light by different women. This is not surprising. As each believer studies the Word of God, he must arrive at a decision on how to live. Whatever is not of faith is sin. If a woman wears a covering on her head in church we believe she does so out of a desire to please God.[FN5] The same goes for women who wear dresses and not slacks, or who abstain from drinking alcohol or who do not believe in dancing. It may be that the Bible allows for more freedom than a particular person thinks, but still here in this world we see through a glass darkly. Not all our decisions will line up perfectly with the perfect Word of God, but God sees our motivation. Thankfully, the ground of our salvation is not our adherence to a certain set of rules, yet we have been saved in order to live holy lives (Ephesians 1:4), and may God enable us all to do so more and more.
***
[FN1] Editor's note: Indeed, a proper balance is necessary. Scripture teaches both that people have personal responsibility for sin and that people have responsibility for tempting others to sin (recall the harsh penalty for proselytizers for other gods in the law of Moses). Blaming everything on the tempter was the error of Adam and Eve and one that Christians should have the wisdom to avoid. Nevertheless, the tempter was also punished for tempting and Christians should avoid placing stumbling blocks before one another.
[FN2] Editor's note: The hermeneutic we should apply is one of continuity. Notice carefully that 1 Peter 3:3-5 states: "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands ...." Thus, while outward beauty is mentioned in the Old Testament (and while it is a good thing), the principle focus should be on inward spiritual beauty. The most obvious reference Peter is making is to the situation where, "when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed" (Esther 2:15).
[FN3] Editor's note: While, of course, there may be some basis for suggesting that "uncover ... feet" is an idiomatic euphemism, it might seem kinder to give Ruth and Naomi the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that literal feet are what are intended.
[FN4] Editor's note: Interestingly, The 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1262, stated, "...women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord." The 1983 Code of Canon Law (which abrogated the 1917 Code) did not repromulgate this provision. Cardinal Burke states:
[FN5] Editor's note: And more particularly a desire to obey the rules set forth in 1 Corinthians 11.
(My apologies to the reader for so many editorial notes. Perhaps at a later date the editor should simply put forth his own article.)
(Recall, this is a guest post).
-TurretinFan
FEBRUARY
Beauty is the topic of the month and here I think Rachel Evans makes some good points. She notes the odd, yet apparently not uncommon teaching of some evangelical pastors (among them Mark Driscoll) who seem to lay the blame for a husband's fornication exclusively on the wife’s “letting herself go” (getting fat, etc.). Dr. Laura Schlesinger has said the same thing, so it's not an exclusively Christian idea. Anecdotal evidence tells us that men stray from even the most amazing and beautiful wives in favor of less amazing and beautiful ones, e.g., Prince Charles’s wandering from Princess Diana for Camilla, a move which caused many men and women to scratch their heads in wonder. But Christians should know better than to blame the wife for the husband’s sin (or vice versa, for that matter). After all, James 1: 14-15 says,
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”Men, women, and children are indeed responsible for their own sins which spring from their own sinful desires.[FN1] This is the clear teaching of Scripture and a Berean Christian, one who searches the Word of God to be sure that the teaching heard from preachers matches the teaching of the Bible, knows that.
Next, Ms. Evans talks about the foolishness of the “abstinence pledge” that she and countless others in evangelical churches have signed. According to her statistics, only 12% keep that promise. First of all, the whole idea of an abstinence pledge sounds a little odd—why just promise to abstain from sexual sin, but not lying, theft, etc. as well? In fact, when a person is converted, he is to confess Christ as Savior and Lord, i.e., King and Ruler of his life. He is not his own person, for he has been bought with a price, the price of Christ’s blood. So perhaps the answer to the 12% success rate is that churches contain many members or attenders who are not truly born again and therefore have not been radically transformed, or at least are not in the process of being radically transformed by the Word of God. A good read on this topic would be Finally Alive by John Piper (2009)(link to pdf - other versions).
Another resource that provides good counsel in the area of sexual purity is a chapter in Kevin deYoung’s book, The Hole in Our Holiness, pp. 107-122 which talks about the Bible’s “radically different sexual ethic” than the world’s Here is godly advice. A book quoted by deYoung that sounds very promising is Sex, Dating and Relationships: A Fresh Approach by Gerald Hiestand and Jay S. Thomas (2012).
Again, I agree with Ms. Evans’ statement that physical beauty is more an Old Testament thing than a New Testament one, a fact that has been noted by several traditional and conservative commentators.[FN2]
The woman of the month who gets several pages of coverage is Ruth the Moabitess. Here Evans takes a feminist view on the book of Ruth. No mention is made of Ruth calling Boaz “lord” which she does in 2:13, perhaps a mere slip on the part of Rachel. She claims that although Naomi advised Ruth that Boaz would “tell you what to do” (Ruth 3:2-4), in reality Ruth told Boaz what to do: she asked him to spread his cloak over her. But Boaz goes on and does tell Ruth what to do: “Stay here for the night and it shall be in the morning if [the kinsman-redeemer) will perform the part of a kinsman…” She refers to Naomi’s plan as “brazen” and mentions that “to uncover the feet” means to “uncover the genitals.”[FN3] A less dramatic understanding of the text might be to “lift up the clothes that are on,” which need not imply immodesty. Thus ends February.
MARCH
March is for Modesty! The “To Do” list includes: dressing modestly, wearing a head covering, wearing only skirts and dresses—no slacks or jeans; abstaining from wearing jewelry; and hanging out with the Amish.
Ms. Evans admits to being discouraged at several points during this year, in curling up in a fetal position, but her complaints are met with her husband’s reminder that she undertook all this as a result of a contract she willingly signed with the publisher, so she has only herself to blame. So after bit of icy coldness between the Dan and her, or a few episodes of The Twilight Zone, she continues.
This chapter owes a lot to Orthodox Jewish scholars and Evans’s Orthodox Jewish advisor/friend, Ahava. This is a mistake because Orthodox Judaism misses the point of much of the Old Testament. If they did not, they would be orthodox Christians. Again, there is a failure on the part of the author to distinguish between the Old and New economy and the differences between the ceremonial, the civil, and the moral law of God.
It was interesting to read of a 1944 “Marylike Modesty Crusade” an effort “to codify Pope Pius XI’s instructions regarding immodest dress,” an effort I had never heard of (perhaps not so surprising since I am a Protestant).[FN4] But much of the chapter is devoted to the Amish and their peculiarities.
I think that Evans could really not find too much fault with the call of the Bible to modesty, especially because that call is interpreted in a different light by different women. This is not surprising. As each believer studies the Word of God, he must arrive at a decision on how to live. Whatever is not of faith is sin. If a woman wears a covering on her head in church we believe she does so out of a desire to please God.[FN5] The same goes for women who wear dresses and not slacks, or who abstain from drinking alcohol or who do not believe in dancing. It may be that the Bible allows for more freedom than a particular person thinks, but still here in this world we see through a glass darkly. Not all our decisions will line up perfectly with the perfect Word of God, but God sees our motivation. Thankfully, the ground of our salvation is not our adherence to a certain set of rules, yet we have been saved in order to live holy lives (Ephesians 1:4), and may God enable us all to do so more and more.
***
[FN1] Editor's note: Indeed, a proper balance is necessary. Scripture teaches both that people have personal responsibility for sin and that people have responsibility for tempting others to sin (recall the harsh penalty for proselytizers for other gods in the law of Moses). Blaming everything on the tempter was the error of Adam and Eve and one that Christians should have the wisdom to avoid. Nevertheless, the tempter was also punished for tempting and Christians should avoid placing stumbling blocks before one another.
[FN2] Editor's note: The hermeneutic we should apply is one of continuity. Notice carefully that 1 Peter 3:3-5 states: "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands ...." Thus, while outward beauty is mentioned in the Old Testament (and while it is a good thing), the principle focus should be on inward spiritual beauty. The most obvious reference Peter is making is to the situation where, "when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed" (Esther 2:15).
[FN3] Editor's note: While, of course, there may be some basis for suggesting that "uncover ... feet" is an idiomatic euphemism, it might seem kinder to give Ruth and Naomi the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that literal feet are what are intended.
[FN4] Editor's note: Interestingly, The 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1262, stated, "...women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord." The 1983 Code of Canon Law (which abrogated the 1917 Code) did not repromulgate this provision. Cardinal Burke states:
The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.(source)
[FN5] Editor's note: And more particularly a desire to obey the rules set forth in 1 Corinthians 11.
(My apologies to the reader for so many editorial notes. Perhaps at a later date the editor should simply put forth his own article.)
(Recall, this is a guest post).
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
