Friday, July 26, 2013
In the Mail
I received K. Scott Oliphint's Covenantal Apologetics: Principles & Practice in Defense of the Faith, courtesy of Crossway, today in the mail. There has been a lot of talk about this book lately in the blogosphere, and I can't wait to dive in.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
My Exegetical Process
The way I do exegesis is that I deal with the text first without any other aid. I want to see the literary context of the book, the smaller pericope, and the use of the words, grammar, and syntax in that context first. I draw that data in and form a preliminary conclusion.
Only then do I consult lexicons, commentaries, monographs, etc. in case there is vital information that I missed, or perhaps, have not seen the text correctly.
I, personally, think this is the best way to do exegesis if one has the skill to do it. For me it is the difference between building a rocket and buying a rocket. I may have a good rocket when I buy one, but that doesn't give me knowledge of the rocket itself. It doesn't show me how the rocket was built inside and out. Likewise, if I merely adopt the conclusions of someone else, I am not really aware of why those conclusions are necessarily valid.
This becomes all the more important as truth has many counterfeits. Doing exegesis this way does not guarantee truth (there are presuppositions and blindspots in terms of a lack of information many times in play), but it at least places me in the position of seeing all of the data and arguments possible before just grabbing at a position I like best due to other factors that are not exegetical in nature.
This is also why I don't care for debates where my opponents cite to me a bunch of secondary literature without having thought through the issues themselves. To me, that's unthoughtful and lazy. It is just relying upon the opinion of someone else as an authority that should trump the exegesis of someone else. And it is appealed to in order to do just that. Do your own work, and bring in the opinions of others afterward.
As an aside, I also think that growth occurs when one does his own exegesis, whereas, there seems to be very little when one does not. God honors the labor of those who seek Him diligently through the Word. It does not seem he will honor those who want to be spoon-fed, not because they are called by God to do so as layman, but because they are called by God to study His Word, but simply don't want to bother.
Only then do I consult lexicons, commentaries, monographs, etc. in case there is vital information that I missed, or perhaps, have not seen the text correctly.
I, personally, think this is the best way to do exegesis if one has the skill to do it. For me it is the difference between building a rocket and buying a rocket. I may have a good rocket when I buy one, but that doesn't give me knowledge of the rocket itself. It doesn't show me how the rocket was built inside and out. Likewise, if I merely adopt the conclusions of someone else, I am not really aware of why those conclusions are necessarily valid.
This becomes all the more important as truth has many counterfeits. Doing exegesis this way does not guarantee truth (there are presuppositions and blindspots in terms of a lack of information many times in play), but it at least places me in the position of seeing all of the data and arguments possible before just grabbing at a position I like best due to other factors that are not exegetical in nature.
This is also why I don't care for debates where my opponents cite to me a bunch of secondary literature without having thought through the issues themselves. To me, that's unthoughtful and lazy. It is just relying upon the opinion of someone else as an authority that should trump the exegesis of someone else. And it is appealed to in order to do just that. Do your own work, and bring in the opinions of others afterward.
As an aside, I also think that growth occurs when one does his own exegesis, whereas, there seems to be very little when one does not. God honors the labor of those who seek Him diligently through the Word. It does not seem he will honor those who want to be spoon-fed, not because they are called by God to do so as layman, but because they are called by God to study His Word, but simply don't want to bother.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Sin and the Moral Voice
They say that signs of a spouse committing adultery can be pretty clear. They usually express a desire to get away from the home. They usually become completely different people than they were before. And they usually rid themselves of the strongest moral voices in their lives.
I found this last one to be very interesting. I have never really thought about it before, but that makes total sense. If you don't want to feel like scum, you get rid of the voice that would tell you that you are. Notice, it's not that the voice is telling you that, but an adulterer will rid himself of the voices that are most likely to make him feel bad about what he is doing. Once these voices are out of the way, the fantasy world, where evil is committed under the pretense that it is really a kind of good thing, may continue.
This is why so many long term friendships end at the point the individual starts or has committed adultery and wishes to justify himself somehow, that is, if the friend is a strong moral voice. An adulterer will often multiply his non-judgmental "friends" and acquaintances at this point. In fact, that is a common reason that new friends are added during this period, and perhaps, why the adulterer's personality has changed so much (i.e., in order to accommodate the new lifestyle and friendships).
The friends who are left behind ought not feel like they did something wrong. This happens to the Holy Spirit daily. When people sin, they do not wish to hear a convicting voice that tells them they are evil for indulging in that sin. They don't want to hear about the move they are making to dishonor God, destroy those around them, and kill themselves. They want to hear supporting voices. They want to hear understanding voices, who may not think what they are doing is ideal, but still accept their choices as valid. People are justifiers of their own evil, and a strong moral voice throws a wrench into that justifying machine. It challenges the justifications of the fantasy world, where evil is done for good reasons without eternally devastating effects.
In essence, the removal of the strong moral voice in one's life is a sign of God's judgment upon the person. It is to ensure that the choice of the person to engage in evil will end in vindication of God and justice for the victims involved. The mind has been given over, and the end result is a complete execution of who the individual once was as a thinking and moral human being. Only an unreasoning animal, good for nothing but to be trapped and killed, as Peter would say, remains.
It's a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and ridding your life of strong moral voices that would call you to account is the sure sign that such a terror is at hand.
I found this last one to be very interesting. I have never really thought about it before, but that makes total sense. If you don't want to feel like scum, you get rid of the voice that would tell you that you are. Notice, it's not that the voice is telling you that, but an adulterer will rid himself of the voices that are most likely to make him feel bad about what he is doing. Once these voices are out of the way, the fantasy world, where evil is committed under the pretense that it is really a kind of good thing, may continue.
This is why so many long term friendships end at the point the individual starts or has committed adultery and wishes to justify himself somehow, that is, if the friend is a strong moral voice. An adulterer will often multiply his non-judgmental "friends" and acquaintances at this point. In fact, that is a common reason that new friends are added during this period, and perhaps, why the adulterer's personality has changed so much (i.e., in order to accommodate the new lifestyle and friendships).
The friends who are left behind ought not feel like they did something wrong. This happens to the Holy Spirit daily. When people sin, they do not wish to hear a convicting voice that tells them they are evil for indulging in that sin. They don't want to hear about the move they are making to dishonor God, destroy those around them, and kill themselves. They want to hear supporting voices. They want to hear understanding voices, who may not think what they are doing is ideal, but still accept their choices as valid. People are justifiers of their own evil, and a strong moral voice throws a wrench into that justifying machine. It challenges the justifications of the fantasy world, where evil is done for good reasons without eternally devastating effects.
In essence, the removal of the strong moral voice in one's life is a sign of God's judgment upon the person. It is to ensure that the choice of the person to engage in evil will end in vindication of God and justice for the victims involved. The mind has been given over, and the end result is a complete execution of who the individual once was as a thinking and moral human being. Only an unreasoning animal, good for nothing but to be trapped and killed, as Peter would say, remains.
It's a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and ridding your life of strong moral voices that would call you to account is the sure sign that such a terror is at hand.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
A Conversation between a Christian and an Atheist
Disputatio
Douglas Wilson & Farrell Till
Whenever we object to something, we always assume some standard or rule that the thing violates. Similarly, when non-Christians object to the Christian faith, they assume some standard that Christianity violates. But can non-Christians justify these standards that they so readily use? In the following interchange, the editor of Credenda/Agenda, Douglas Wilson and Farrell Till, editor of The Skeptical Review , discuss the topic of justifying non-Christian standards of ethics and reason.
For the past thirty years, Farrell Till has been an English instructor at Spoon River College in Canton, Illinois. Prior to this, he was a preacher and foreign missionary for the Church of Christ. He attended two Bible colleges and received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Harding University. His preaching career spanned twelve years, five of which were spent in missionary work in France. After becoming an agnostic, he quit the ministry in 1963 and began a teaching career. For the past five years, he has edited The Skeptical Review , a quarterly journal that focuses on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. He has regularly debated inerrancy-related issues in various public forums, including radio and television. Having begun this work as an agnostic, he now considers himself an atheist.
DW: Many unbelievers commonly object to the God of the Bible on the basis of ethical "problems" with the character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Whether they use psalms of imprecation, the slaughter of the Canaanites, the eternal wrath of God on the impenitent, etc ., the central theme is usually the same "Who would want to worship a God like that !" But despite the surface plausibility of the objection, a careful examination of it shows their Achilles attacking our Hector with his bare heel. Far from being the unbeliever's strongest case against the true God, this objection actually reveals the radical futility of unbelief; without God there are no ethical objections to anything .
FT: Although you didn't expressly state the "objective-morality" position of evangelical apologists, you certainly implied it when you said that "without God there are no ethical objections to anything." The fallacy of this position is its failure to recognize that morality is an intellectual abstraction. As such, it is no different from abstractions of tragedy, sorrow, or any of many other abstractions the human mind has formulated from its broad range of experience. Arguing that human intelligence cannot determine if acts are immoral without a god to tell us they are is as illogical as arguing that we cannot tell if events are tragic without a god of tragedy to tell us they are.
DW: Fine, I'll bite. If there is no God, then all the things you mention are in the same meaningless category. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
FT: You bit too hard. In equating all human abstractions with "swamp gas over fetid water," you overlook verifiable facts. The human mind can think; swamp gas can't. Human intelligence can evaluate situations and formulate abstractions of beauty, happiness, sorrow, fairness and morality; swamp gas can't. Are these abstractions valid? Well, what IQ level is needed to conceptualize abstractions like beautiful, sad, fair, right or wrong? Can one with an IQ of 100 do it, or must his IQ be infinite? The existence of moral concepts is verifiable; the existence of gods who put such concepts into human minds is unverifiable. Please address this problem.
DW: You missed my challenge. You acknowledge the distinction between human intelligence and swamp gas, but you have no way to account for it. If there is no God, then why is there a distinction between the chemical reactions in your head and elsewhere? Suppose we agreed that the walls of a house are straight. I say there must be a foundation under it -- a precondition for straight walls. Your hypothesis is the house has no foundation at all and doesn't need one. "See, the walls are straight without a foundation." But given your worldview's assumptions, why ? Can you explain how time and chance acting on matter can produce the straight walls of reason and morality?
FT: No, you missed my challenge. You are the asserter, so you must bear the burden of proving your assertion. You have asserted that "without God there are no ethical objections to anything," so I insist that you prove that. You have admitted that human intelligence can formulate abstractions, but you say that " all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water." Prove that please. Can the brain's solution of algebra problems be right? If so, does "God" have to put the right solutions into the brain? If not, can a brain that correctly solves algebra problems correctly solve moral problems? If not, why not? Where did your god get his intelligence?
DW: Since you insist, I'm glad to repeat my argument. If there is no God , then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Thus, your atheism destroys rationality and morality. Intellectual and moral relativism have long challenged atheistic worldviews. No atheist has successfully addressed this problem, although you are invited to try.
FT: If I fizzed "flat-earthly," and you fizzed "round-earthly," would you argue that you don't hold your view because it's true but "rather because of a series of chemical reactions"? Would your "round-earthism" then destroy rationality and science? There is a truth in the theism-atheism controversy. The fact that no one can establish that truth to everyone's satisfaction doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. So I'll repeat my challenge. What IQ level is necessary to abstract moral concepts? To discover moral truths? Let's take the Amalekite massacre (1 Sam. 15:2-3). How much intelligence is needed to determine that no morally perfect entity could have ordered the slaughter of children and babies?
DW: "There is truth in the theism-atheism controversy." Amen. You are able to say so because you assume that truth is objective. Again, you bet. But objective truth cannot be validly derived from the premises of your worldview. You are borrowing objective rationality and morality from the Christian worldview in order to attack the rationality and morality of the Christian worldview. There was a moral problem in the Amalekite attack -- Saul was disobedient and didn't kill everything as God instructed. You should have no objection. Given your worldview, there is no moral difference between the Amalekite massacre and a day at the beach. In both cases, all you have is atoms banging around.
FT: If the Amalekite children who were killed with Israelite spears could speak, would they say there was any difference in what happened to them and a day at the beach? You know they would. What IQ level would they need to distinguish the difference? You have evaded the issue long enough, so why don't you tell us how much intelligence is needed to formulate abstractions of beauty, loyalty, justice, etc.? Without a god of beauty, can one validly determine that a sunset is beautiful? If so, why can't one determine that acts are immoral without a god of morality? Truth is objective because of reality, not because some deity arbitrarily decides what truth is.
DW: Well of course, you and the Amalekite children may assert some objective moral distinction between good and evil. But given the basic assumptions of your worldview, neither of you can justify that distinction. On your assumptions , the chance collection of atoms called Jews objected to the Holocaust; the random atoms called Nazis did not. And so what? Given atheism, what is the difference? Do the good atoms wear white hats? Your persevering but irrelevant inquiries about intelligence reveal that you do not yet understand the nature of the problem. Objective and universal standards of reason, morality, and beauty simply cannot exist in your purely material world. You are fighting Christianity with borrowed Christian weapons.
FT: When have I said that "objective morality" exists? It doesn't. To say that objective morality doesn't exist, however, is not to say that morality doesn't exist. Rational processes can validly distinguish "good" from "evil" just as they can validly distinguish happiness from sorrow, but I can't explain in 115 words how this can be done. If you care to debate this in a less confining forum than your "Disputatio" format, then let's do it. Meanwhile, why don't you explain where your objective morality came from? If you say, "From God," then please explain where he came from. No theist has successfully addressed this problem, but you're invited to try. Try to remember that you're the asserter.
DW: If morality is not objective, then it is subjective. If it is subjective, then it is as diverse as five billion subjective states of mind. Such fragmented subjectivity provides no authoritative ethical voice, and hence no morality deserving of the name. Related to this, you must now disclaim "objective rationality" as well as "objective morality," for the two are built on the same foundation -- or rather, in your worldview, not built on the same non-foundation. But if objective rationality does not exist, then your worldview does not permit you to reason for three words in a row, much less 115. The laws of logic are as nonmaterial as the God you so diligently oppose.
FT: Are you arguing that subjectivism cannot determine truth? If so, reality will not support your claim. You keep harping about my worldview, so please address the many problems in your "worldview." Where did "objective" reality come from? From God? Well, where did he come from? How can one determine what "objective" morality is? From the Bible? If so, a lot of subjectivism will be involved in reading and interpreting it. Looking for "objective" morality in the Bible will produce a morality "as diverse as 5 billion subjective states of mind." If not, why not? "Such fragmented subjectivity" will provide "no authoritative ethical voice" and so "no morality deserving of the name." Please address this issue.
DW: Reality doesn't support my claim? Would this be your reality or mine? Would this be subjective or objective reality? If subjective, then I don't think ice cream has bones either. If objective, then you would have to identify (and defend) the authoritative voice through which this reality speaks. Of course, I am arguing (and have shown) that subjectivism destroys truth. The fact that you have in effect embraced subjectivism means that the debate over the existence of God is over, and we are now discussing certain problems that arise from an affirmation of His existence. Having shown that atheism is inescapably false, I am happy to turn to the problems you raise. Next round.
FT: You've been a master of evasion. You assert the existence of "objective" morality, but you have evaded all challenges to prove that it exists. Nothing exists -- not even your god -- simply because it would be nice if it did exist. In your final installment, please address this issue. How do you know that "objective" morality exists? Where did it originate? If you say from God, please prove that God exists. If "objective" morality is revealed in the Bible, it becomes something inseparable from subjective interpretation, so just what is the great advantage that your "worldview" has over mine? If you ignore this issue again, I'm afraid your evasion will be obvious to all.
DW: The proof you seek has been pervasive throughout the debate. I have been pointing to the impossibility of your alternative. The debate over God's existence does not fit in the same category as a debate over the existence of peach jam. The jam may or may not exist, leaving our thought processes unaffected either way. If God does not exist (as this alleged "master of evasion" has pointed out repeatedly above), then our thought processes (yours and mine) are one thing. If He does exist, then they are something else entirely. The content of your affirmations has been atheistic, your unacknowledged presuppositions theistic. This means that, on a fundamental level, you and I agree that He is. Originally appeared in Credenda/Agenda (Vol. 7; No. 1)
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
No One Should Charge for a Bible
"Freely you have received, so freely give" (Matt 10:8). Although this passage refers to the apostles healing ministry, I think it can apply, since the gospels use healing as a symbol of spiritual healing through God's Word.
I think, therefore, that Bibles should be free. That includes these huge Bible programs. No one should be making money off of the Bible. Christians should donate to fund the projects and people doing the work, or better yet, they should really be an outreach of the local church; but charging for a Bible, whether an old paper one or a nice sophisticated one, I believe, is immoral. The problem is that we've become comfortable with that immorality. We're used to making money off of people who want to become closer to God. We've become the moneychangers who condemn the moneychangers in the Bible but give little application to what we're doing in selling Bible's in the present. Again, people should be supported in ministry, so via donations or church funds, we can support their work. Publishers can even charge for other books in order to fund their Bible production, if they truly are ministries and not money-making machines that is. It doesn't need to be an ultimatum of "give us money or no Bible." We're not the authors. God is, and He doesn't charge us. We may translate it. We may compile tons of Bibles in a program and design programs to search it. But it's God's Word, and it should be free. That's just my two cents.
I think, therefore, that Bibles should be free. That includes these huge Bible programs. No one should be making money off of the Bible. Christians should donate to fund the projects and people doing the work, or better yet, they should really be an outreach of the local church; but charging for a Bible, whether an old paper one or a nice sophisticated one, I believe, is immoral. The problem is that we've become comfortable with that immorality. We're used to making money off of people who want to become closer to God. We've become the moneychangers who condemn the moneychangers in the Bible but give little application to what we're doing in selling Bible's in the present. Again, people should be supported in ministry, so via donations or church funds, we can support their work. Publishers can even charge for other books in order to fund their Bible production, if they truly are ministries and not money-making machines that is. It doesn't need to be an ultimatum of "give us money or no Bible." We're not the authors. God is, and He doesn't charge us. We may translate it. We may compile tons of Bibles in a program and design programs to search it. But it's God's Word, and it should be free. That's just my two cents.
Objectivism Refuted
That the senses give us an accurate perception of reality can only be confirmed by belief in a reality we cannot perceive with the senses. As one must know what reality is independently of himself in order to measure his perception by it and establish the idea that what he perceives is, in fact, reality. Ergo, faith in a metaphysic is a necessity in the evaluation of any claim that concerns a knowledge of reality. Hence, objectivism is false, as it is not the senses that give a knowledge of reality, since they must be measured by an a priori knowledge of reality, but the metaphysic by which knowledge is gained by faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)