Horton vs. the Sermon on the Mount (take 2!)

In a previous post, we saw how Horton exegetically blundered in asserting that "In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel."

Horton is at again. This time he writes:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus announces a “regime change” from the civil laws of the theocracy.

This kind of interpretation of the text (I hate to call it exegesis) demonstrates that Horton still does not understand the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount was not about regime change. The Sermon on the Mount did not discuss the civil law. It did not suggest that the civil law is obsolete, abrogated, or irrelevant. Nor did the Sermon on the Mount foretell such an event. Even if the civil law is obsolete, abrogated, or irrelevant now, that's not what the Sermon on the Mount was about.

Moreover, Jesus' teachings at the Sermon on the Mount were - at least in general - continuous with the Old Testament teachings. They express a continuity and explication, not a discontinuity.

For example, Jesus said:

Matthew 5:21-22
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Notice the old time vs. Jesus is one in which Jesus enhances and clarifies the law. He is not providing a regime change, but greater light.

Matthew 5:27-28
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Again, there is more light and clarification. Jesus' rule is even stricter than the Mosaic civil law. He's explaining the moral law - personal morality.

Matthew 5:33-37
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Again, more light and clarification is provided. Moreover, here there is warning of danger on a practical level of personal morality.

Matthew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

This example one might think is contradictory, but Jesus is actually shedding more light. "Eye for an eye" is a principle of legal justice, not a norm of personal morality. We are not required to demand an eye from someone who blinds us, though a judge is required to enforce the law.

Matthew 5:43-47
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Here Jesus is correcting a misinterpretation of the requirement that we love our neighbor. Recall Jesus' explanation from the case of the good Samaritan.

The theme of all this discussion can be summed up by what comes before and after:

Matthew 5:19-20 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Within these bookends, we see that the theme is not "regime change" but greater revelation of the revealed will of God. Moreover this entire passage from one bookend to the other is the explanation following Jesus' comment:

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

One could hardly imagine a less "regime change" comment than that, particularly in light of what follows. There is a heightening of our understanding of the moral law thanks to Jesus' self-revelation.

Horton continued:

Instead of driving out the enemies of God, the True Israel—those united to Christ—are to endure suffering for the gospel and to pray for their persecutors.

Jesus did not make that distinction. Moreover, driving out of the Canaanites was a one-time requirement of the Israelites within more or less specific geographic boundaries. They were given Caanan, not the world. They were called to execute God's judgment on the specific nations that lived in that specific region, not all nations everywhere who refused to obey God.

Horton appears to make a false dichotomy based perhaps on the comment about "eye for eye" (quoted above). Yet Horton's false dichotomy is seen to be false when one considers:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

The point in Matthew 7:1 cannot reasonably be thought to be a prohibition on Christians serving as judicial judges, just as the the exhortations to meekness and mercy in chapter 5 are not commands to the civil magistrate, but rather they explain proper adherence to the second table of the law (love thy neighbor as thyself).

Indeed, Jesus himself explains:

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Notice that Jesus does not say "for this replaces the law and prophets" or "this is a regime change from the law and the prophets," but "this is the law and the prophets." Jesus is teaching more clearly what the law and the prophets already taught.

Horton continued:

God’s common grace is shed on the just and the unjust alike in this age.

God's common grace is shed on the just and the unjust alike by definition. Moreover, the classical example of common grace is this:

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Considering that is part of the Sermon on the Mount, one assumes that Horton has that in mind. But the rain has been falling that way at least since the days of Noah. There's nothing regime-change-ish about common grace. It's not something new to the new covenant administration of the covenant of grace.

- TurretinFan

Reviewing a Blog Exchange Between Hays and Hubner

I've been watching, with some sadness, a blog exchange between two guys with whom I'm on good terms. I thought I'd post my thoughts on the exchange here for what it's worth. It's a long post and probably only of interest to me, the two guys, and a few of our mutual friends. Nevertheless, I offer it up for your reading enjoyment, if you so choose. I had considered entitling it "Scoring a Debate," but I think there is a pretty clear outcome to the exchange, and perhaps I can just leave the reader to draw his own conclusion about how I would score it.

1. A Brief History of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Jamin Hubner)

In this post, Hubner writes (amongst a lot of other stuff):

Eventually, in the last half of the century, Dispensationalism became popular enough that it started affecting mainstream politics and foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine.[2]

[2] See Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise? (Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 2003).

In response, Steve Hays posted:

2. Sleeping with the enemy (Steve Hays)

In this post, Hays did not challenge the question of whether Dispensationalism affected mainstream politics and foreign policy in America. Hays, however, objected to Hubner "plugging Gary Burge’s tendentiously entitled Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians."

Hays took the position that "Burge is basically a shill for Hamas." Hays also posted links to three negative book reviews of Burge's book.

In response, Hubner posted:

3. Steve Hays, Hubbub, and Hamas

In this post, Hubner expressed confusion ("One is simply left wondering: why was this written, and why now? Whatever the case, I’m not the only one left scratching my head ... .") at the point of Hays' post, after first impugning Hays' motives: "Today he wrote an entire blog post ... for (what appears) no other reason than to make me look bad through association" and "now Steve stoops to a new low in trying to solidify his “pattern” theory." In support of this criticism of Hays' motives, Hubner introduced some prior criticism of Hubner that Hays had provided.

Then Hubner posed three questions, to wit:

1. Who is the one “sleeping with the enemy” and who is the “enemy” in the title of your blog post, and why did you see those terms as fitting?
   
   
2. How were you hoping your readers would respond to your particular post, in thought and/or action?
   
   
3. Did you read Gary Burge’s book Whose Land, Whose Promise? prior to when you wrote your post essentially criticizing the book, and if not, are you willing to read it and discuss the arguments he raises? (I certainly am.)

The first two questions may be interesting to Hubner, but they don't have any logical relation to Hays' argument. The third question also doesn't appear to have much to do with Hays' argument. Hays cited three reviews of Burge's book (he didn't claim to have read the book himself), and Hays was not addressing a specific argument that Burge presented.

Hays responded with:

4. Siding with the enemy

In this post, after addressing some of Hubner's complaints about being criticized, Hays pointed out that there is a difference between culpable and inculpable association. Hays wrote:

ii) Jamin isn’t merely “associated” with Burge, in some purely incidental way, because he happened to reference a book of his.

No, Jamin agrees with Burge. For instance:

…Israel is guilty of committing countless war atrocities that qualify and surpass the covenant obligations in Scripture. Mass murder. Torturing men ages 14-60s. Unjust use of water supply and the abusive treatment of aliens and foreigners. The creation of millions of refugees. And so on and so forth.[14]

[14] See chapter 2-3 of Burge, Whose Land, Whose Promise?

http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/11/06/with-all-due-respect-rosenbergs-latest-painful-pronouncement-on-israel-is-wrong/

Notice how he defaults to Burge as an unquestioned authority, to validate Jamin’s incendiary allegations.

It should be noted that here Hays is quoting from a different blog post than the originally quoted post. Thus, Hays has now identified two places where Hubner has positively cited Burge's book.

Hays then went to argue that the purpose of his post is self-explanatory from the content. Responding to question 1 above, Hays wrote:

i) Burge is the immediate target, but to the degree that Jamin is rubberstamping Burge, then he’s complicit, too.

ii) Because we’re in a counteroffensive against global jihad and creeping dhimmitude. In a conflict of that nature, it’s crucial to know the difference between your allies and your enemies. Burge is siding with the enemy.

In responding to the second question from Hubner, Hays wrote:

By considering Burge’s affiliations and reading the reviews, to alert them to Burge’s agenda.

In response to Hubner's third question, Hays wrote:

i) Jamin is recasting the point of the post. That’s a red herring. As I pointed out, the question at issue are the political (contributor to Sojourners) and theological (PC-USA minister) presuppositions which Burge brings to his book. And you don’t have to read his book to know that, for his book is not the only thing he’s written on the subject. For instance:

http://blog.sojo.net/author/gary-m-burge/

ii) And I don’t need to read Burge to know about the nature of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

In response Hubner posted:

5. Steve’s Reply, and My Take On Present-Day “Israel”

In this post, Hubner leads by essentially calling Hays dishonest ("Until then, I think everyone should be wondering, for a well-known blogger who gives advice on how to do apologetics, why didn’t he just say so? Enough sowing seeds of doubt against another fellow Christian, and making assertions with unstated conclusions. Just be honest and say what you believe") .

Hubner then adds:

and saying my citation of a book “ought to alert one to his presuppositions” is anything but helpful for readers, as it hardly begins to explain why that is the case, or what “presuppositions” they are, or why they are wrong, why any of these things are significant, etc.

This is a strange statement, since what Hays had actually written was: "The fact that Burge is a PC-USA minister, along with the further fact that he’s a contributor to Jim Wallis’s leftwing rag Sojourners, ought to alert one to his presuppositions." It's unclear how Hubner's statement bears any reasonable relation to what Steve actually said. Moreover, that comment was not Hays' only comment. Hays was pretty explicit in saying that "From what I’ve read by him and about him, Burge is basically a shill for Hamas." That was Hays' very next line after what Hubner quoted.

Hubner also writes:

Indeed, publicly calling on the people of God to be on the “alert” for the presuppositions of a certain Christian apologist is a serious charge, and whether anyone likes it or not, it cannot just be brushed aside (though I’d sometimes like to!).

It appears that Hubner has similarly mistakenly interpreted Hays' criticism of Burge for criticism of Hubner.

And then Hubner expresses yet more confusion:

Now I am really confused. Is Steve actually saying that these historical events just didn’t happen? Or, if they did, that they are irrelevant to discussing…whatever conflict he means when he talks about “taking sides”? I hope Steve can provide some answers to this.

Hubner then goes on to state his position on the Jews.

In short, it appears that at this point in the back-and-forth, Hubner still has not addressed Hays' challenge to Burge's presuppositions, perhaps due to Hubner assuming this is all about him, not about Burge - despite Hays' clear statement that it is about Burge.

Hays responded with:

6. Voodoo dolls

Hays begins by pointing out Hubner's seeming desire to make this discussion about himself, rather than about Burge and briefly noting Hubner's double standard of casting doubt on Hays while complaining that Hays is casting doubt on Hubner.

Moving on from there, Hays addressed Hubner's question/point about the readers needing to be alerted about what presuppositions are at stake in this way:

i) I trust that most readers of Triablogue are capable of drawing their own conclusions. I’m sorry that Jamin can’t give his own readers that much credit.

ii) Is it really so hard to follow the trail of breadcrumbs?

If Burge is ordained in the PC-USA, that tells you something about his theological sympathies, or tolerance for liberal theology. If Burge is a regular contributor to Sojourners, that tells you something about his (leftwing) political sympathies. Those are presuppositions that he brings to his analysis of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

Then Hays addresses the fact that Hubner had misinterpreted Hays words about Burge as being about Hubner with some rather colorful analogies.

Hays then turned to Hubner's question about whether the events described in Hubner's post actually happened. Hays initially explained:

i) I didn’t take a position on that one way or the other. Rather, as I specified, the question is whether he should be getting his information from a guy like Burge.

At this point, Hays could have stopped, because the question of whether people should be getting info from Burge was really the point at hand.

Nevertheless, Hays went on to question each of the quite general assertions set forth in the second instance that Hays had identified where Hubner had cited Burge favorably.

Finally, Hays turned to address one point from Hubner's discussion of his own view of Israel:

[quoting Hubner]

I don’t believe any human being (or nation for that matter) should support – either by word or deed – any secular nation regardless of what it has done, is doing, and intends to do.

You’re entitled to your Pollyannaish blather, but the US has a prefect right to support nations that support us in a military alliance against a common enemy. The president of the US has a sworn duty to defend the homeland.

It’s also simplistic to describe Israel as a “secular nation.” Aside from the sizable number of observant Jews in Israel, let’s not demean the leavening presence of Messianic Jews in Israel.

I think it would be a good idea for James White to do another show with Michael Brown, only this time he can ask Dr. Brown to discuss the Arab/Israeli conflict.

Obviously, at this point, the areas being discussed are expanding.

Hubner responds with:


7. Steve Stoops Lower Still

After complaining about the tone of Hays' prior post and the fact that he thinks Hays is not interested in talking about what Hubner wants to talk about, Hubner states (I'm omitting the bold that was generously used in Hubner's post):

First things first. Steve ought to read Burge’s book before his public ignorance of its arguments grows larger than his apologetics blog can handle.

Of course, Hays never claimed either to have read the book or to be familiar with the arguments in the book. Hays had already clarified that his point was about the problem with Burge's presuppositions.

Next, Hubner suggested that people read Burge's book because "Burge’s book contains a fair argument ... , namely, that if Jews want to claim their God-given right over “their land,” they should at least be consistent in applying the God-given conditions for possessing that land." Hubner distances himself from other of Burge's arguments. Nevertheless, Hubner's point here again does not address Hays' contention regarding the presuppositions behind Burge's book. Additionally, in neither instance where Burge was cited by Hubner above was Hubner citing that argument from Burge. Instead, Hubner was citing Burge as a fact witness.

Hubner continued by arguing (bold and italics were generously used - I've omitted them):

Third, as if it even needed to be said, Steve’s entire argument made thus far (if there is one to be identified) is by and large, fallacious. Gary Burge could be the most evil person on the planet, a racist sexist homophobic Marxist Mormon murderer, and none of that would change the facts, or change the legitimacy of the facts if they are spoken by such a person. Steve knows that it doesn’t matter who is making an argument, what matters is what is being said.

This response confuses categories. First, there is a difference between the validity of Burge's arguments and the truthfulness of Burge's factual claims. The validity of Burge's arguments doesn't hinge on Burge being a good person. However, second, if Burge hates Jews (assume he does for the sake of the argument), then one should be naturally suspicious of him as a source of anti-Jewish facts. That doesn't automatically invalidate his factual claims, of course. Nevertheless, it means one might be better advised to quote as a fact witness, someone without the presuppositions that Hays has alleged that Burge has.

Hubner continues the category confusion with this:

But, how does this even matter if Steve is incapable and/or willing to demonstrate how those presuppositions render Burge’s argument in his book that I cited from (which is how all of this got started) wrong or invalid?

But Hays didn't interact with any of Burge's arguments and (until this post) Hubner had cited Burge for facts, not arguments. Hubner didn't say, "As Burge argued Israelis need to be consistent." No, Hubner had accused Jews of war crimes and atrocities and had suggested a connection between dispensationalism and a pro-Israel foreign policy citing Burge for those alleged facts.

Hubner then complains about his attempts to make this about himself being largely ignored by Hays.

Hubner then provided additional complaints, alleging his misreading of Hays was reasonable and complaining about the tone of Hays' response to his error.

Hubner then provided some responses to Hays' questions regarding Hubner's factual assertions for which Hubner had cited Burge.

Finally, Hubner posed several additional question to Hays, namely:

1. Is it even possible for the modern-day nation of Israel to do anything worthy of condemnation?
   
   
2. And have they done anything that is worthy of condemnation in the past?
   
   
3. If they have, would it not be helpful to acknowledge and understand those events before blindly conceding to every effort to “support Israel”? (Because, if my neighbor commits sin, I don’t want to be responsible for having helped that sin to occur. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is present-day Israel incapable of doing something wrong as a national entity?)

These questions, of course, don't address any of Hays' arguments. They might move forward a general discussion about the merits of Israel as a nation, or the Israel-Palestine debate, but that wasn't the debate that Hays had offered or one for which Hays had provided arguments, beyond questioning Hubner's factual allegations.

Hays responded with:

8. Dupes for Hamas

In the post, Hays noted Hubner's attempts to make the discussion about himself and about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than about what Hays actually wrote in his original post.

Hays commented that Hubner's first comment about "public ignorance" is ironic, because it implies that one cannot take Hubner's word that Burge states what Hubner cited him for.

Hays then pointed out that Hubner has again not followed Hays' argument, identifying a new instance of what Hays referred to as "bait-n-switch."

Hays then addressed Hubner's claim to ignorance of what Burge has written by pointing out that Hays has not only provided reviews of Burge's book but also a link to an article where Burge "tips his hand," according to Hays.

Using some colorful analogies, Hays explains (as I did above) that actually person's presuppositions (and who they are in general) do matter when the person is being treated as a fact source:

Actually, it does matter. It goes to the credibility of the witness. Whether a reported “fact” is, indeed, a fact, involves a consideration of what motivated the witness. That’s pretty standard stuff in sifting testimonial evidence. Take C. A. J. Coady’s Testimony: A Philosophical Study.

If a guy with a clinical history of psychosis assures me that he saw bear-sized rats in the basement, who is making the claim factors into my evaluation of the claim.

Hays then accuses of Hubner of dishonesty:

[quoting Hubner]

That’s why I am so amazed that Steve is willing to pass by the substance of arguments themselves (apologetics -argument-truth) in order to attack people via their associations (politics-ad hominem-people).

Notice that Jamin isn’t making the slightest effort to be honest. For I specifically distinguished between culpable and inculpable association. Does Jamin interact with that distinction? No. Rather, he ignores it, then acts as if I’m the one who fails to draw distinctions. Go figure.

Hays then goes on to provide a detailed refutation of the remaining points related to Hubner's previous questions about whether Hays accepts Burge's factual assertions. Hays explains how Hubner is not addressing the issues and not properly characterizing Hays' responses.

Hubner responded with:

9. And That Answers That

Hubner starts off his post with this remarkable string of assertions:

I’d love to continue to respond to his questions (e.g. discussing such events as Deir Yassin massacre and the history of the secular state of Israel, etc.) and correct his argumentative errors and double-standards, but, as I indicated in the conclusion to my last post on this subject, answering a whole set of questions from a person who refuses to do the same (only with Steve’s case, he is refusing to answer the most basic questions) is fruitless. It’s like debating the doctrine of atonement with someone who you don’t even know believes the Bible is the Word of God, or discussing inerrancy with an atheist who won’t tell you if he’s an atheist, or what have you. It’s 100% pointless. Until we know where each other is coming from, there can be no progress. And it is by all means clear that Steve does not want to (and perhaps, because he cannot) provide a positive case for his own position, let alone summarize it. He simply wants to criticize without following through and without providing anything more. I refuse to take part in that, as should everyone else.

First, Hays never offered to carry on a debate or discussion about those things. Instead, Hays had been attempting to make the point that he started with, namely his challenge to citing Burge as a fact source with respect to the Isreal/Palestine discussion, given Burge's presuppositions. Moreover, while Hubner may not like all the answers that he has been given, there is documentation above showing Hays answering Hubner's questions, even questions that are not actually germane to Hays' points.

Hays' position was that Burge isn't someone who should be a trusted source, and Hays documented that position. Hays didn't offer a position on a number of other topics, but why should he?

Hubner continues by stating: "in this part we realize that Steve has no interest in talking about the fundamental issues of present-day Israel and Christian theology." I'm not sure why this comes as a surprise to Hubner. Hays' objection wasn't couched in terms of the fundamental issues of present-day Israel and Christian theology. Why on earth should Hays care about such a thing? Simply because Hubner has irrelevantly dragged it into the discussion?

Hubner then goes on to impugn Hays' motives for not quoting a larger segment of Hubner's post (at the second portion).

Hubner goes on to argue:

“Doesn’t subject his sources to rudimentary scrutiny?” Uhhh, what? Steve hasn’t even read the source that I have cited from and that he criticizes. Why would I think that providing more sources would be adequate? I wonder, if Burge wasn’t a PCUSA minister and didn’t write for Sojourners, would his book magically become a credible source – credible enough that Steve would bother to read and understand its argument? (And I wonder, if I switched around and asserted that the Palestinians have done bad things in the past instead of Israel, would Steve criticize these factual claims just the same? Would he have even looked up the bio of the author of the source I was citing, like he did for Burge? Given what he has written, I doubt it.)

In point of fact, though, Hays didn't criticize the factual claims until Hubner insisted on Hays commenting on them. Hays' initial point was the untrustworthiness of Burge as a source. As Hays explained already, one does not have to read Burge's book to know that. One can read reviews and one can read other things that Burge has written.

Moreover, Hays' comment about Hubner's lack of discernment in citing an alleged "shill" of Hamas as a fact source regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict stands on its own two feet. That comment is not undermined even if Hays himself is someone who doesn't exercise proper discernment or doesn't properly do his homework (not that such accusations are true). Thus, Hubner's argument that appears to be an attempted tu quoque falls flat.

Hubner states:

We already know Steve is convinced Burge’s works are generally bunk – not because what Burge says is actually wrong, but because Burge was ordained in the PCUSA and has contributed to a Christian-leftist publication.

Again, this is not an accurate characterization of what Hays said. Hays said Burge is not trustworthy on this topic as a source of facts. That doesn't mean that everything Burge says is wrong, or that any given argument from Burge is wrong.

It's absolutely astounding to me that Hubner still doesn't get Hays' point. I assume that Hays will leave it at this, because I can't imagine that Hays could be any more clear than he has been.

UPDATE *** Hays provided one further round of comments in the following (which it appears he wrote before seeing my summary above, though I don't know that for sure):

10. Instant-expert syndrome

In this response, Hays points out that the "Deir Yassin massacre" is not particularly cut and dried, and that it would be prudent to suspend judgment about it.

Hays also addressed comments (quoted at the top of 9 above) in this way:

I realize that it’s in Jamin’s self-interest to change the subject, but the thesis of my initial post was very modest and narrowly-targeted. So, no, I don’t have to chase Jamin down diversionary rabbit trails.

which, of course, is the case. There's no requirement for Hays to discuss other topics.

-TurretinFan

On Back Pack Radio Discussing Harold Camping

You already may have an overdose of discussion about Harold Camping. Last week, however, I recorded an interview with Vocab Malone for Back Pack Radio in which I discussed Harold Camping. (here's the mp3 of the show) The episode aired May 22, 2011.

-TurretinFan

The Necessity of the Atonement

One thing that differentiates genuine Christianity from some counterfeits, such as Islam, is that the Living and True God is too holy to simply ignore sin. Instead, God's holiness and justice demand satisfaction for sin. There are a number of ways that this can be seen in the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testaments. The following is one example

2 Samuel 24:10-25

And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly."

For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying,

Go and say unto David, "Thus saith the LORD, 'I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.'"

So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, "Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. "

And David said unto Gad, "I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man."

So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, "It is enough: stay now thine hand." And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, "Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house."

And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, "Go up, rear an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite." And David, according to the saying of Gad, went up as the LORD commanded.

And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him: and Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground. And Araunah said, "Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant?"

And David said, "To buy the threshingfloor of thee, to build an altar unto the LORD, that the plague may be stayed from the people."

And Araunah said unto David, "Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood." All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, "The LORD thy God accept thee."

And the king said unto Araunah, "Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing." So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.

There are a few points to notice from this passage. First, notice that God chastises David for his sin. This chastisement comes upon David, even after he expresses remorse for his sin and asks for forgiveness.

Second, notice that God sends this chastisement upon those whom David as King represents. There is a federal headship of Israel that is found in David, such that David's sins are not only brought against David but against Israel in general.

Third, notice that David foreshadows the coming penal substitution of Christ, when he requests that the people of Israel be spared but that the sin be placed against him and and his father's house, that is to say, his family. David's theory is that the people have not sinned, but David has sinned. Nevertheless, God has placed the iniquity of our transgressions on Christ, the son of David, and he has borne them for us.

Fourth, notice that although God first desires not to destroy Jerusalem, and God stays the hand of the angel in advance, God does not simply say "never mind." Instead, God demands sacrifice. It is on the basis of the sacrifice (which itself foreshadows Christ's work on the cross) that God's wrath against the land was propitiated.

From this we can learn that God did not have to wait until the coming of Christ to spare those who trusted in Christ. There was no need for a limbus patrem in which the patriarchs waited for Christ's sacrifice to be performed. God could and did show mercy to the ancient based on the expectation of Christ's sacrifice.

From this we can also learn to trust in God and not in man. David shows us the way in which we should repent of our sins. We ought humbly to go to God and confess our sins to Him. We ought to cast ourselves on his mercy - and we ought to avail ourselves of the sacrifice of Christ to turn away judgment from us.

We should not falsely imagine that God will be happier to judge us than to spare us. Rather, we should see from this passage that although God is a holy God who cannot ignore sin, nevertheless God delights in mercy and spares those who turn humbly in repentance and faith to Him.

-TurretinFan

Turretin on the Faith of Infants (Reasons - Part 1)

XIV. Rationes cur ita statuamus sunt: 1. Quia promissio Foederis non minus ad Infantes, quam ad Adultos pertinet; siquidem Deus pollicetur se fore Deum Abrahami, et seminis ejus, Ge. xvii.7, et, Act. ii. 39, promissio dicitur facta Patribus et Liberis. Ergo et beneficia Foederis, qualia sunt remissio peccatorum, et sanctificatio, ad eos pertinere debent, ex Jer. xxxi., xxxii., et pro statu ipsorum a Deo ipsis communicantur. Quo sensu juxta quosdam fidelium liberi dicuntur sancti Paulo, 1 Cor. vii. 14. Licent hoc melius referatur ad sanctitatem externam et foederalem quae illis competit, secundum quam, quia nascuntur ex parentibus foederatis et Christianis, saltem ex altero, censentur etiam in sanctitate geniti, id in Christianismo, et non in Ethnicismo, qui status erat ἀκαθαρσἱας et impuritatis.

XIV. The reasons are: (1) the promise of the covenant pertains no less to infants than to adults, since God promises that he will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed" (Gen. 17:7) and the promise is said to have been made "with the fathers and their children" (Acts 2:39). Therefore also the blessings of the covenant (such as "remission of sins" and "sanctification") ought to pertain to them (according to Jer. 31 and 32) and are communicated to them by God according to their state. In this sense (as some think), the children of believers are called "holy" by Paul (1 Cor. 7:14). This may with more propriety be referred to the external and federal holiness which belongs to them, according to which (because they are born of covenanted and Christian parents—at least of one) they are also considered to be begotten in "holiness" (i.e., in Christianity, and not in heathenism, which was a state of uncleanness [akatharsias] and impurity).

(source for English, including the other paragraphs of this question)

The above is taken from Turretin's Institutes, Volume 2, 15th Topic, 14th Question, 14th paragraph. One unfortunate error in Dennison's edition of Turretin's Institutes (in English) is that "Patribus et Liberis" has been placed in quotation marks (see English version above), when - in fact - it is not a quotation from Acts 2:39, but rather the sense of the text.

This is mostly being posted for a friend who wants the Latin, rather than to spark conversation (although, of course, if someone wants to comment on the faith that infants can have, they are welcome to do so).

-TurretinFan

Os Guinness and Biologos

Biologos has posted a large number of videos, including videos from folks who are not, to my knowledge, traditionally associated with the anti-Creationist movement.

For example, Biologos Youtube channel has the following videos from Os Guinness:

1. Os Guinness: No Fear

2. Os Guinness on Science, Faith and the Culture War

3. Os Guinness on Reading Scripture Faithfully

4. Os Guinness on Why the Church Should Engage in Scientific Discourse

5. Os Guinness on Evolution and the Atheist Worldview

If you listen carefully, you will see a lot of themes that appear to point to Os Guinness promoting the error of theistic evolution. However, he never really comes out and says it. His comments are the sort of things which tend to come out of the mouths of theistic evolutionists, but he never actually (that I could find) endorses the theistic evolutionist position.

He even goes so far in his "No Fear" video to cast "shame on those who are perpetuating this miserable polarisation" between "faith and science." Despite this stern warning, Os Guinness does not identify what constitutes such polarisation, leaving the reader to guess.

-TurretinFan

Incorrigible Camping

Camping has moved his date from from May 21, 2011, to October 21, 2011. No repentance for his faulty hermeneutic. He simply took the position that he was not being spiritual enough.

There's not the smallest reason to take his claim seriously. I hope no one will, though I fear his followers will seize on this false hope that his approach will pull through.

Harold Camping remains a heretic outside the church, and is himself in danger of the hell-fire that he claims does not exist. May God have mercy on him.

-TurretinFan

Where is the Promise of Christ's Coming?

One of the key passages regarding the second coming of Christ is found in 2 Peter 3:1-18 (the entirety of chapter 3 of 2 Peter). First, let me provide you with the text of the chapter, and then my commentary on it.

2 Peter 3:1-18

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying,

Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

First, notice that chapter is directed to the beloved - to those who are believers - to those who are already familiar with the promises of God by the prophets and the commandments of the apostles (both Old and New Testaments, one might say today).

Second, notice that Peter prophesies scoffers who will arise and mock the idea of Christ's second coming. There are such men now. We saw many mocking Mr. Camping's prediction of May 21, 2011. Some mocked it because of its absurd claim to be based on the Bible. Others, however, mocked it because they mock the whole idea of Christ coming again. This latter group is the group of scoffers that Peter's prophecy applies to.

Third, notice what else characterizes these scoffers. These scoffers think that the world just goes on and on as it always has. What they are voluntarily ignorant about is the great flood of Noah's day. In that flood, God wiped out all mankind throughout the world, except for eight souls who were left on the ark.

The point that Peter makes in discussing Noah's flood is to point out that God has already judged the world once. God will judge it again. Those who think that life will continue on Earth endlessly should pay attention to the warning that the flood provided.

Fourth, notice the two-fold reason given for the delay in bringing judgment on the Earth again. God does not care about time - that's what the "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" means. It does not mean that God embedded a secret day = one thousand years code in the Bible as Mr. Camping and others before him have thought. Instead, it means simply that God is indifferent to time as such. God doesn't feel rushed to accomplish in a day what men might take a thousand years to do, and God doesn't feel impatient about accomplishing in a thousand years what men might wish were accomplished in a day.

The second part of the reason for the delay is that God is gathering in the elect now. God is longsuffering to us, not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance. If God were to have destroyed the world on May 21, 2011, some of the elect would (we must assume) never have been born, or never would have come to repentance and faith. God is indifferent to time, but we live in time. Thus, God uses time itself to His own purpose in the salvation of the elect.

Fifth, notice that the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Herein lies the utter absurdity of Mr. Camping's prediction: a thief wouldn't advertize his robbery in advance on billboards and radio waves around the globe. No, a thief comes without warning, when he is least expected.

Moreover, observe that this "thief in the night" characterization is not simply with respect to the scoffers, but with respect to the beloved as well. While scoffers had been addressed earlier in the chapter, now the beloved are being addressed and are being told that Christ's return will surprise them too.

Sixth, notice that the day of the Lord will be a day of judgment. When Christ returns, it will not be to set up an earthly kingdom. No, the heavens will be destroyed with a loud noise, and the Earth will be destroyed with fire.

Seventh, notice the lesson to be taken from the fact that the world will be destroyed. The lesson Peter draws is that we ought to live holy lives. We ought to be less concerned with this world and its glories (all of which will be destroyed) than with the new heavens and new earth that will come after it. We should be longing for the coming of the Lord, and yet we should understand that God in his mercy is showing longsuffering, as also Paul wrote (see Romans 2:4 and 9:22).

Eighth, notice that Peter identifies Paul's epistle to the Romans and his other epistles as Scripture. This is an important point to take note of, since it demonstrates that the canon of Scripture was known to include the Pauline epistles even during the apostolic era. It was not later generations who came up with this.

Ninth, notice that Peter warns us to be careful. We should not follow the example of men who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. It is hard not to apply these words specifically to Mr. Camping at this time, but nevertheless we ought to realize that there were wicked men wresting the words of the apostles in their own days, the Reformers had to contend with those of Rome wresting Scripture in even more destructive ways, and if the Lord tarries we will see many more wicked men do the same.

Tenth, and finally, notice that the way to avoid the error of the wicked is not to run away from learning and knowledge. Instead, the way to avoid the error of the wicked is to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The antidote to Camping's mishandling of Scripture is to pray for God's favor and to seek knowledge of God in the Scriptures - Scriptures that guarantee that the Lord will return, but also guarantee that no one will know the day or the hour.

- TurretinFan

Chosen But Free Reviews - Part 4

I think this will be the last of the parts of my responses to reviews of "Chosen But Free." Thus, I think I have now completed my series of responses (part 1, part 2, part 3) to reviews of Chosen But Free, with a particular emphasis on how I think the students who prepared these reviews might benefit from the rebuttal provided in Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom." The numbering of the reviews picks up from the previous post.

31. THEO 202-003

This review seems to buy into the idea that Geisler has provided a "balanced" view of sovereignty and free will. As I have said many other times, I think the reviewer would be in a position to give a more balanced judgment, if he had also read Dr. White's rebuttal in "The Potter's Freedom."

32. Onomonopia

This review expresses a similar sentiment to many of the other reviews. By way of providing an example, here's how this review put it:

Ultimately, Geislers book is a great overview and relation of two opposing views that are normally seen to only be contradictory. He relates these views not just by his own knowledge but by pulling examples straight from the scripture itself.

As I have said many times, Geisler's book isn't balanced: it's one sided. Those who read it should really take the next step and read the other side.

33. Love God With All of Your Heart

This review had one surprising comment that I thought was worth addressing separately. The reviewer wrote:

I do agree with that. God does have a plan and a purpose for our life. I do agree that nothing that we do can change God mind. We not get there the way that is way that God wants us to get there. But one day we will get to the place that God wants us to be. It just may take longer.

This sounds curiously fatalistic. We can't change our destiny, but we can delay it. That's neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian view, technically speaking. We Calvinists don't hold that God simply has an end in mind for us that will somehow come to pass. We also believe that "all things work together for good" to those who are the called according to God's purposes.

34. My testimony

This review seems to reflect that the reviewer caught on to the fact that Geisler is basically promoting a version of Arminianism (the version that teaches "eternal security"). The reviewer also sets forth an argument against limited atonement. I'll respond to that argument:

1 peter 3:18 says For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit”. In Titus 2:11 it says “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men”. Lastly, in 2 Corinthians 5:15 it states “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf”. All these verses have the word ALL in them so I don’t really know how people can argue that God died for only the chosen when the verses say otherwise.

That emphasis is in the original review. A few responses:

Regarding 1 Peter 3:18, the "once for all" is actually just an idiom that means "once for all time." The KJV puts it this way:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

You will notice that "all" doesn't even appear in that translation. The point of the verse is just that Jesus suffered one time. This contrasts with often-repeated Old Testament sacrifices and the Roman Catholic mass that is repeated daily.

Regarding Titus 2:11, the "to all" there should be carefully considered. Recall that the verse as a whole is this (KJV):

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Notice that "to all men" refers to the fact that saving grace of God has appeared to all men. It doesn't mean literally ever last person, but to the fact that this is not limited to the Jews. The proclamation of the gospel is for everyone, even if it has not yet appeared to everyone. The "to all men" doesn't refer to "brings salvation." If it did, we would be universalists.

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:15, the verse does say "all," but all of whom? All of the people in the world? Look at the context to find out (KJV):

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

As you can see from the context, the "all" refers to "us." One died for all of us.

35. honest to goodness thoughts

This review comments on the issue of free will and its relation to evil. The review argues thus:

Some, such as Jonathon Edwards might argue that sin comes from nature but Adam contradicts that because he fell in a perfect world and was created good in nature. (Geisler,39-40)

I found that interesting, because I heartily commend Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will" to everyone's reading. I am surprised to hear that the reviewer thinks that a world with a tempting serpent and a wife who has already given in to the temptation is a "perfect world," but even beyond that: doesn't the reviewer think that there will be free will and an absence of sin in heaven? The problem here is really that Edwards' position hasn't been accurately portrayed. While our fallen human nature is one reason we sin, Adam had an innocent but fallible nature. He was able to make an error and he did. He judged it better to follow his wife and the serpent than to follow God.

36. Lauren's blog

This review reflected a belief that Geisler had found a middle path between two extreme views. That's the impression that the book gives. But that impression is easily remedied by reading Dr. James White's response in "The Potter's Freedom."

37. Spit it Out

This review expresses the seemingly common (in the class) perception that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is a waste of time that would be better spent evangelizing. Evangelism is important. On the other hand, theology matters. If we are not really ready to understand free will, God's sovereignty, and their interplay, we may face difficulty when we are asked those kinds of questions by the atheists and others we run into.

38. Nursing Student on a Mission

This review raises one of Geisler's arguments against Calvinism based on the nature of Love. As expressed by the reviewer:

I agree with what Geisler says on page 140 of his book. He basically argues that love is not and cannot be irresistible. He states “God is love, and true love never forces itself on anyone, either externally or internally. Forced love is a contradiction in terms” (Geisler, 140).

Isn't the answer a little obvious? Hell is coercion. There is a "turn or burn" aspect to the gospel call. If you don't love God, you will burn in Hell forever. That should be enough to demonstrate that Geisler's analogy is fundamentally flawed. What could be a worse threat than Hell? After all, we are not to fear those who can kill the body, but Him who can place both body and soul in Hell.

39. Joey Yapp

This review, one of the few that appears to be placed on a "real" blog (although some of the other folks have a "real" blog in addition to the class blog), seems to reflect an impression that the book was good and balanced. I hope that the reviewer will take the time to review Dr. White's response in "The Potter's Freedom."

40. Theology 202: Dr. Caner

This review presented two points that I'd like to address briefly:

God came to this world to save the entire world, all sinners, not just a select few that he had chosen.

There are plenty of verses that indicate the latter. But consider the implications of the former position. If God came to save each and every person, has God mostly failed? Or is God free to save whom God wants to save? That's one of the key points of "The Potter's Freedom." It explains God's freedom to save.

One thing that I was a little disappointed with in this book was the lack of in depth scripture usage. Geisler uses tons of scripture references all throughout the entire book, but I feel like they barely scratch the surface of each topic. I mean, any person can flood a book with scripture references to make it sound like they apply to the topic at hand, but it doesn’t always mean that it proves the point that you are trying to argue. I loved the scripture he used, but I feel like he could have gone a little bit deeper with his usages.

Here's where I think the reviewer might be especially thankful for "The Potter's Freedom." It goes in-depth in its exegesis of the Scripture text. In that regard, it stands in contrast to "Chosen But Free."

41. Katie's blog

This review is similar to many of the others in terms of buying into the idea that Geisler is presenting a balanced position. That idea is undermined if one reads the rebuttal to Geisler's work, "The Potter's Freedom."

There is one comment from this review that I feel I should address:

I believe that Christ died for ALL, and ALL have the same opportunity to receive God’s gift. I believe that Christ desires for ALL to go to Heaven.

I realize that the belief that Christ died for everyone is quite popular, even though when Christ described his own sacrifice he did not say "which is shed for all" but "which is shed for many." Nevertheless, even if you will not accept that Christ died for many (rather than all) at least you must acknowledge that not all have the same opportunity. Some are born into Christian families. They grow up in a church, being brought to Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and so on. They have a lot of opportunity. Other children are born in communist China. Their opportunities are more limited. And the people of this century have more opportunities to hear the gospel than those of previous centuries. Think about the American Indians before the Europeans showed up, for example. Think about all the nations outside of Israel before Christ. These people do not all have the same opportunity, even though all have the same way of salvation: repentance and faith in Christ.

42. LU THEO 202-003 (subtitle for blog: My blog about what Dr. Caner tells me to blog about for THEO 202-003)

This review similarly accepted Geisler's claim to be taking a middle position. The review contained an interesting argument from Jonah:

God is in control but I don't think He forces people to do things. He tells us what He wants, but I've never thought He would force anyone to do it. Just look at the life of Jonah. God told Jonah that He wanted him to go to the Ninevites, but He did not force him to go. Jonah ran the other way and wound up in the belly of a big fish. Jonah had a choice to go or to run the opposite direction. Jonah then saw that God knew what He was talking about and ran to Nineveh after he was vomited out of the fish.

If I put a gun to your head, I'm "forcing" you to do what I say. God didn't put a gun to Jonah's head, but he did place Jonah in a position where Jonah had to be cast into the sea to avoid his death and the death of the men that were with him. Moreover, God threatened all of Nineveh with destruction. They repented and God spared them. But it is strange to say that God is not "forcing" them.

You can say that "they still have a choice," but I'm not sure what that gets you. Even if someone has a gun to your head, you still have a choice, yet at the same time you are being forced.

Moreover, God is able to change a person's heart. That's not at all like pointing a gun at someone, yet I suppose it would be considered "forcing" the person, according to the reviewer. What's wrong with that kind of "forcing" though?

43. mattlillis

This review was interesting for a variety of reasons. I will respond to it paragraph by paragraph:

Geisler’s discussion on whether faith is a gift only to the elect in his book, Chosen But Free, was a most intriguing section, which I found myself very much engaged. On page 237 Geisler states, “Nowhere does the Bible teach that saving faith is a special gift of God only to a select few,” and proceeds to give numerous versus such as John 11:40. Geisler makes another very pungent statement a littler further on page 240 where he is tackling the Arminian and Calvanist view of faith saying, “God is pleased with our faith, yet this is not because it adds to the work of Christ, which alone satisfies God’s justice. On the contrary, God is pleased with our faith because we know we cannot do anything to add to the work of Christ and must wholly and completely trust in Him and Him alone for our salvation.” These two extremely profound revisions of scripture seem to resonate between Calvin and Arminius’ arguments in a way that makes total sense and only validates what I have already come to know and experience about God. I totally agree with Geisler’s main argument here that we play no role in adding to the salvation that Christ offers, this being in regards to having a “faith.” His choice of words and just overall clarity of message simplified such a complex and ingenious conclusion, and created one of those take away messages that great minds seem to come up with.

Regarding the issue of saving faith being a gift of God for a select few:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Indeed, eternal life itself is the gift of God:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

As for it being "for a select few," not everyone has saving faith. If they did, all would be saved. They would all have eternal life.

Geisler's point about God being pleased with our faith is not necessarily wrong in itself (I'm sure the reviewer mean "poignant" not "pungent"), but it misses the point. It's good that Geisler doesn't try to argue that faith is meritorious. Nevertheless, Geisler's argument about faith pleasing God seems almost to treat faith as though it were a work, rather than as it being the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

Next:

Another example that Geisler gives from scripture that seems to resonate on the same frequency with his other arguments is on page 237, “Finally, the Bible describes faith as ours. It speaks of ‘your faith’, ‘his faith’, and ‘their faith’, but never of ‘God’s faith’ as a condition for receiving the gift of salvation.” This argument, although good, is not as good as the other two I previous quoted, I disagree with what he is trying to do here because he is describing what the Bible doesn’t say, over what it does say, and this can be a slippery slope into false teaching.

The faith is ours - but isn't that true of all gifts we are given? Is eternal life not ours, just because it is a gift of God? God is not the one who believes, we are. Nevertheless, faith - like life itself - is a gift of God. Surely Geisler would be willing to admit that life is a gift of God, yet God is not the one living our life.

Finally:

Norman Geisler’s overall methodology of attacking this monumental debate of free will that has been raging for centuries was overall very well communicated and easy to follow, which made the book enjoyable to read. I was not getting lost in cross references and incoherent rhetoric. One concern that turned out not to be a problem with Geisler that I had before starting the book, was I did not want to read just a conglomeration of Straw Man arguments and misguided scripture references. But Norman Geisler seems to take great caution throughout the entire book to avoid such arguments and quote scripture in a historical and contextual way that seem to validate most if not all of his conclusions. The appendices in this book though were not constructed well and I thought they should have been included in the main text, because that is where I found most of the “meat” of the text and his arguments.

I think the reviewer would really enjoy the meat contained throughout "The Potter's Freedom." The reviewer may also be surprised to discover that some of the positions that Geisler presented may be criticized as being straw men. That's part of the value in reading a rebuttal: it casts further light on the quality of the original work.

44. Chosen But Free

This review is the only post on this particular blog. I have no idea of whether the author of the blog created a new blog for each of the blogging assignments, or only recently joined the class, or what. This review contained some similar comments to those already addressed above, as well as one comment that I'll address now:

Norman Geisler states, free choice in this life means, “the ability to do otherwise” (21).

This is interesting. Does that mean that God does not have free choice, because God is unable to sin? Does that mean that in the next life, we will not have free choice - or that the very definition of free choice will change? These questions seem to undermine Geisler's point.

On top of that, "the ability to do otherwise" is an ability that is never, ever used. It seemingly exists simply to make people feel better. It's not just unused, it's unprovable. One cannot prove that one had or has the ability to do otherwise than what one does.

45. Justine's Blog

This review focuses on chapter 4 of Geisler's book. The review makes one of the robot arguments that we are used to hearing:

I believe that we need to stop putting the blame on God and taking responsibility of own actions. I believe we have a free will to do what we want and I do not think that we are God’s robots just walking around on earth doing exactly what he tells us to do. If that were the case, we would live in a perfect world because God would not tell us to sin and do wrong. God loves us and wants us to always do right but He knows that we are not perfect and that we are going to fall short sometimes. We have a merciful, forgiving Savior who dies for our wicked sins and we need to be grateful that He has done for us. Also, if we did not have a free will then we would all be followers of Chirst and everyone would be on their way to heaven. But instead, we have people who love God with all their heart, people who are backslidden, people who don’t care about religion and even people who hate God. How can somebody say that they do not have a free will, after seeing the different levels of faith that there are? If we were all God’s ‘robots’ then we would all be on fire for God but that is unfortunately not the case.

The problem with the argument is the underlying the assumption that if God ran the show, there would be no sin. We are not robots, of course. No Calvinist says we are robots. Nevertheless, if one will concede that God is omniscient (he knows everything), omnipotent (he has all power), and interested (he cares what happens), then it follows that everything that happens is - in some sense - approved by God. God could (at least) prevent anything bad from occurring, and yet God does not.

God's sovereignty, then, is higher than this reviewer gives God credit for. I would encourage this reviewer to consider reading James White's "The Potter's Freedom" to get a better picture of the sovereignty of God.

46. Theo 202

This review indicated that "one of my favorite parts" was the way that Geisler used Scripture. Considering the much greater Scriptural depth of "The Potter's Freedom," I believe that this reviewer might really benefit from Dr. James White's rebuttal to Geisler's book. "The Potter's Freedom" also rebuts Geisler's insinuation that Calvinists and Calvin had divergent viewpoints. Nevertheless, the five points (as such) are really more associated with the Synod of Dordt than they are with Calvin himself.

47. dagment

This review is another of the reviews that concludes that Geisler provides a balanced position between Calvinism and Arminianism. In "The Potter's Freedom," Dr. James White explains how Geisler has essentially just proposed an Arminian position (with respect to most points), while demonstrating from the Scripture why the Calvinist position should be accepted by those who accept the authority of Scripture.

48. alexanapier

This review can probably be well summarized by one of the lines from the review: "I enjoyed Geisler’s ability to use logic and scripture to defend the balance between free will and God’s sovereignty. " While I can understand that one might get that impression from reading Geisler's book alone, one really will get a more balanced perspective by reading the rebuttal to the book, namely Dr. James White's "The Potter's Freedom."

49. Theology II

This review presented a few interesting points drawn from Geisler. I will respond to each:

Geisler makes a distinct difference though when he states “According to this view (Calvinism), God’s predetermination is done in spite of His foreknowledge of human free acts. God operates with such unapproachable sovereignty that His choices are made with total disregard for the choices of mortal men.” Here it is supposing that God knows what free choices we will make and plan accordingly.

This simply is not an accurate view of Calvinism. According to the Scriptures, God sovereignly ordains all things including men's free choices. God's decrees, therefore, are not "in spite of" man's free choices. Instead, God's decrees frame and give purpose to man's free choices. Man's free choices have a purpose in God's plan.

The view that God knows what man will do and plans accordingly makes God reactive. It places man's free will above that of God, since God is reduced to making the best of a mess.

For, as Geisler said, “If free choices were not considered at all when God made the list of the elect, then irresistible grace on the unwilling follows; that is, man would have no say in his own salvation. Accordingly, the fact that all men do not choose to love, worship, and serve God will make no difference whatsoever to God.” If it were not for this simple choice, then there would be no point in the creation of humans.

But Scripture says:

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Isn't that the point? Man does not have a say in his own salvation. It is all of God, it is all by grace.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The point of God's creation of men was not to leave God eternally disappointed. The point of creation was for God to glorify himself.

Romans 9:21-24
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

50. Tim's Blog

This review focused on the question of who is in charge. One interesting passage from the review is as follows:

It is an incredible, comforting, and yet scary thought to know that the God that we serve knows our every action and our every thought. Having this is mind should change our actions and our thoughts. Luke 1:37 says that “Nothing is impossible with God.” This however brings up the question: Can God make a mountain big enough for him to move? This can easily be solved by clarifying that God can do anything that doesn’t contradict itself. In other words, God cannot lie because it is against his nature. Also, God cannot make a triangle with two sides because, by definition, a triangle is a three sided figure.

Hopefully, this reviewer realizes that man's free will is not a mountain too big for God to move. With such a realization, one must realize that all things, even the free actions of human beings, are within God's sovereignty and are ordered as God wishes. Only when God is in control is God's sovereignty a comforting thought.

51. My Mind as an Open Book

This review is another review that aims to adopt Geisler's position. The review even identifies the reviewer as a "moderate Calvinist" using Geisler's categories. The review states, among other things:

I want to focus on chapter four and briefly state my opinion. Geisler’s premise was this: if God knows everything we are going to do and our free will cannot change that, then the future cannot be changed. Therefore, the conclusion is, we are not responsible for any of our actions whether good or bad. This is an extreme view of God’s sovereignty and does not take into account man’s free will.

But we cannot change the future. If we could, then we could render God's prescience of the future wrong. But God actually knows what we will do - he's not just guessing. So, that will definitely happen. If God knows we will do X, there's not the slightest chance we will not do X. We may bring about the future, but we don't "change" it.

52. Kirstin!

This review indicated an appreciation for Geisler's use of Scripture. While it is good that Geisler attempted to support his position with Scripture, Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom," demonstrated that Geisler's attempted reliance on Scripture was mistaken. This review also included an argument that I thought it made sense to address here:

Geiesler also discusses the big topic of free will. In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve a choice, proving the fact that we are given a choice, and it is up to us to choose. We as humans have the free will to do what we want. Salvation is literally given to everyone and it is our human choice to decide whether we want to accept it or not. Here on earth, we are truly free. We are truly free because we are given a choice to do what we want, and are not bound to making a decision that we don’t want to make. I like the quote on page 21, “In heaven we will be free from evil; here we are free to do evil.” We are free to choose good or evil here on earth, but once we make our choice, we are bound to it when we die. God gave us the gift of salvation, not the gift of faith (pg. 229). Faith is what we have the freedom to choose. Basically, we all have salvation, it our choice whether we want it or not.

Has the reviewer really thought about the problem of heaven? Why is it ok for humans to be free from evil in heaven, but not ok for them to be free from evil (per Geisler)? Doesn't that seem to be simply a double standard? Is there no free will in heaven? Surely no one would assert that. Therefore, free will isn't really a sufficient answer to why we sin here.

Second, salvation is not given to everyone - it is offered to everyone. It's important to distinguish between those two things. The gospel offer is universal - but the gift of salvation is given to those who believe.

Moreover, faith itself is a gift. After all the Scripture tell us:

1 Corinthians 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

A consistent Arminian would have to answer the question with "faith." But Paul's point is to make a rhetorical question: God is the one who makes one person to differ from another. We have nothing - not even faith - that we did not receive from God. Therefore, we cannot glory even in our faith.

Does the Bible Guarantee Camping's Prediction?

Harold Camping has widely asserted that "the Bible guarantees" his prediction regarding the end times. This invites us to us examine his Biblical claims. One large chunk of the basis for Harold Camping's claims with respect to May 21, 2011, is that 2011 is allegedly 7000 years from the flood. Camping's date for the flood is unique and springs from work that he published as "Adam When?" in 1974 (I understand that the book may have undergone some revisions or editions since then, and in the following discussion I am referring to the current version available at his website.)

Adam When? purports to be a book that seeks to uphold the integrity of the Bible, and particularly the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. These are noble and right aims. The book quickly goes astray, however.

At page 36, Camping begins a section entitled "Inspired Verbs." While the verbs of the Bible are inspired, Camping treats them as though they represent a code. In short, Camping says that in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, whenever the text describes A begetting B and living a set number of years, this should be interpreted as A being just an ancestor of B, with B being born the year of A's death.

There's no Biblical proof for this approach. In other words, Camping cannot point to any passage where the Bible explains that this way of speaking is being used. This is a key point: nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that when it says "A lived so and so years and begat B and lived so and so more years after he begat B and he died," that B was actually born not after the first so and so years, but rather at the very end of A's life. This particular patriarchal generation idea is just something Camping dreamed up.

Moreover, Camping is forced to admit that in certain cases it is clear that this terminology is used of direct father-son relationships. Camping actually provides an exception for those cases in the genealogies where the text says that the father "called [his son's] name [name of the son]."

But this exception is as arbitrary as the rule. Camping does not provide a Scriptural basis for why the expression "called his name" should be a sign of direct father-son relationship that holds water. After all, the term is frequently used to refer to a mother naming her son, or even to neighbors of the grandmother naming a child:

Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

And, of course, a very old man could name his grandchild born in the year of his death just as easily as neighbors could name their friend's grandchild. So, again, the idea that "called his name" is a special sign of direct father-son relationship is yet another thing that Camping just dreamed up.

What is truly bizarre is that begetting is something that only a father actually does, whereas calling a child's name is something that the mother or even the neighbors of the grandmother can do.

Camping's only answer to this objection is to point to Matthew 1:8 and to allege that Matthew declares that Joram begat Uzziah, although there is not an actual father-son relationship between the two. According to Camping: "Ahazial, Joash, and Amaziah should come between Joram and Uzziah."

Various explanations have been given as to why there are those three apparently missing generations in the Matthew genealogy. What is key about the Matthew genealogy, however, is that it does not purport to provide us with a chronology (i.e. dates). There are no ages or years of life mentioned. Instead, it is providing a lineage, much the way the Ezra 7 lineage does (the Ezra 7 lineage apparently omits 6 generations).

We could speculate about the apparent missing generations (are there really missing generations? have they been omitted because of a curse placed against Ahab? or does Ozias not correspond to Uzziah, but rather to a brother of Ahazial?), but such speculation isn't really necessary.

Why isn't such speculation necessary? Matthew 1's genealogy does not follow the patriarchal generation model that Camping has described. In Matthew 1's genealogy the only "called his name" is - you guessed it - Joseph calling Jesus' name in Matthew 1:25. It would be blasphemous to assert that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

Thus, we see the arbitrary nature of Camping's pick-and-choose hermeneutic. Camping picks the apparently missing generations of Matthew 1:8 to establish a mere ancestry interpretation of the term "beget," while ignoring the "called his name" in the same genealogy, where such usage undermines Camping's theory.

In summary:

1) Camping simply dreamed up his unique patriarchal generations theory. The Bible does not tell us that, for example, the following passage should be understood as saying that Jared was born in the year that Mahalaleel died:

Genesis 5:15-17
And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: and Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

2) Camping simply dreamed up the "called his name" exception. The Scriptures do not tell us that "called his name" is a special clue that there is direct father-son relationship between the person who called the name of the other person. Indeed, many times it is a woman who calls the name of the child (Genesis 4:25, Genesis 19:37, 1 Chronicles 4:9, 1 Chronicles 7:18) and sometimes it is even the neighbors of the grandmother, as we saw in the case of Obed.

3) Camping appeals selectively to irrelevant texts to make his case. As we noted above, Matthew's genealogy does not provide years, only lineage. Thus, Matthew's genealogy is not especially relevant to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. Moreover, if Matthew's genealogy is relevant, Camping ought also to take into account the fact that "called his name" in Matthew 1:25 refers to Joseph naming Jesus, though Joseph was only the adoptive father of Jesus, much like Pharaoh's daughter was only the adoptive mother of Moses where she "called his name" in Exodus 2:10.

So, to answer the title question of this post, no - the Bible does not guarantee Camping's prediction. Camping's prediction is something that Camping dreamed up and attempted to impose on the Bible. Even if a very generous person would say that the Bible does not unequivocally deny Camping's imposed reading, certainly Camping's claim that "The Bible Guarantees It" falls short.

-TurretinFan

Camping Rained Out by Flood

One of the key items in Harold Camping's interpretation that leads him to conclude that 2011 is the last year is that the flood was in 4990 B.C. and that A.D. 2011 is "exactly" 7000 years later. That 7000 years number is important to Camping, because at one point God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" (Genesis 7:4). Moreover, elsewhere Camping has noted that with the Lord one days is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as a day. Thus, Camping concludes that it is 7000 years from Noah's Flood until Judgment Day.

First, this is completely arbitrary. There's nothing about Genesis 7:4 that would lead someone to conclude that does not refer simply to the seven literal days that were fulfilled in the days of Noah. The reference to the earth being destroyed there is a reference to the world being destroyed by a flood, and we have been promised that a global flood will never again destroy the earth (see Genesis 9:13), of which the rainbow is a sign of the covenant.

The arbitrariness of the interpretation can be seen from the full context of the verse itself: "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)

There is no room for 40,000 years in Camping's chronology, so this part of the verse is conveniently ignored. Perhaps a justification is given that when it says "days ... and ... nights" it is not referring to thousands of years - but such an explanation doesn't come from the Bible.

There's another problem, though. The Bible doesn't date the flood to 4990 B.C. Of course, the Bible doesn't give year numbers, the Bible gives genealogies. Those genealogies can be used, to some extent, to reconstruct the history of the Old Testament era.

If one uses those genealogies, however, one will not arrive at 4990 B.C., one will arrive with a number like 2349 B.C., the number that Archbishop Ussher calculated, or 2957 B.C. - the number similarly calculated from the Septuagint translation (incidentally, the former calculation places Creation at 4004 B.C., while the latter places it around 5200 B.C.).

The 4990 B.C. date for the flood is actually something that Camping came up with around 1970 or so, and published in "Adam When?" in 1974. There is an updated version available on Camping's website now. Lord Willing, we will discuss "Adam When?" some more in a future post.

What suffices for this post is to point out that if Camping is right about the flood being 7000 years before the end of the world, then we have well over a 1000 years to go.

-TurretinFan

Counting Down with Camping ...

In a previous blog post, I commented on the fact that Camping has demonstrably miscounted the number of days between April 1, 33, and May 21, 2011. The number of days 722,501, not 722,500. How did he make this mistake?

Here's Camping's calculation paragraphs from his "Another Infallible Proof":

Because of the importance and wonder of this proof we will take time to develop it. First we must learn that we can develop with perfect precision the number of days from one date to another. To obtain the precise number of days from a moment in one year to the same moment in any other year we must realize that astronomers have long ago discovered that there are 365.2422 days in a complete year. That is why in our modern calendar there are 365 days in each of three consecutive years. However, every fourth year has 366 days. This is done by adding an extra day in February of that year. Thus the average year for the four years becomes 365.25 days. But .25 is greater than .2422, so every 128 years a day is dropped from the calendar to maintain accuracy.

Thus all we have to do is multiply the number of years separating two events by the number 365.2422 to know the exact number of days between them. So from April 1, 33 A.D. to April 1, 2011 there are exactly 2011 – 33 = 1,978 years, each having 365.2422 days. This equals 722,449.07 days. From April 1, 2011 to May 21, 2011 inclusively (including the first day and the last day) are 51 days. Adding these 51 days to the number 722,449.07 gives us exactly 722,500.07 days, from April 1, 33 A.D. to May 21, 2011 inclusively. This number is enormously significant. Presently we will see why this is so.

Camping has made a mistake. The number of days from April 1, 33, to April 1, 2011, is actually 722,451 days (not 722,449.07). What about his proof? His proof is based on an assumption that April 1, 33, to April 1, 2011, are exactly 1978 years apart, and that a year is 365.2422 days.

Camping's calculation allegedly provides the number of days as 722,449.07, although more precisely the number is 722,449.072. But there's a serious problem with the calculation. The number of days between April 1, 33, and April 1, 2011, is not a fractional number of days. It's an exact integer number of days. That's because the sun rises exactly once each day.

If you're not convinced, try a simple example: April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011. Using Camping's method, that's one year, and consequently it is 365.2422 days. But, in fact, you can go get a calendar and count and verify that, in fact, it is exactly 365 days.

Also, keep in mind that the 365 number is based on counting only one of the two end days. This is the normal way of counting days. For example, we say that April 2 is one day from April 1. That's because we count only the last day (April 2) and not the first day (April 1). So, it is a little strange when Camping asks his readers to count 51 days based on counting both the first day and the last days ("From April 1, 2011 to May 21, 2011 inclusively (including the first day and the last day) are 51 days.")

Using this method means counting from April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011, to be 366 days. Moreover, as we noted before, if one counts both the first and last days, the number of days from April 1, 33, to May 21, 2011, is actually 722,502 days.

It is also strange to see how some of his other calculations work:

Interestingly this same message of salvation or judgment being the result of the Gospel is hidden in the total number of years the Gospel was to be sent by the churches into the world. We have learned that the church age began immediately after Christ demonstrated how He suffered and died to make payment for sin. That was in the year 33 A.D. We learned that the church age officially began on Pentecost, May 22, 33 A.D. It continued exactly 1,955 full years until May 21, 1988 when the church age came to an end.

A few points. 1) Why are days counted with the first and last day both counted, whereas years are counted normally? Those familiar with Camping's work should recognize this kind of arbitrary hermeneutic - a hermeneutic of convenience, if you will.

2) 1955 "full years" according to his 365.2422 number would be 714,048.501 days.

2) But the actual number of days from May 22, 33 A.D. to May 21, 1988 is exactly 714,051 days (including the end date) - which is indeed 1955 full years (including the end date).

Why April 1? According to Camping, April 1, 33 A.D. is when Christ was hanging on the cross, reminding people of the sacrifice he had already made before the foundation of the world.

However, April 1, 33 A.D. was a Wednesday, as you can see in the calculation results already discussed and as you can calculate for yourself (just enter month "4", day "1", and year "0033".

Incidentally, some programs may tell you that April 1, 33, was a Friday (input "4", "1" and "0033" here, for example), but if you look more closely, you will see that these are programs that are using a Gregorian calendar (back before the Gregorian calendar was even invented).

Incidentally, I suspect that this two days (of the week) difference is connected with the two-day error in Camping's calculations, but I am not sure.

- TurretinFan