Atheism

The new atheists like to claim that religion is evil, that if we can only eliminate it from the public discourse, our most pressing sociological problems will infallibly evaporate.

Leaving aside the unreasonableness of the position for the time being, the atheist really has a massive problem with his position: there is no possible meaning that can adhere to concepts like right, wrong, good and evil within the assumptions of atheism.

At base, atheism is materialism. And in materialism, there is no self-consistent framework within which one can make value judgments; "good" and "evil" are nonsensical terms if the cosmos is all that there is or will ever be. Whatever happens happens; it is neither good nor evil - it just simply is.

When the dictator orders the destruction of an entire people group, that is not "evil;" it is simply evolution in action. In evolution, the only real purpose for anything is to pass on your genes to the next generation. The most efficient way to ensure that this happens is to eliminate all effective competition. To commit genocide is only evil from the perspective of the doomed people group. There is no God to whom the genocide will give account; if he escapes the justice of man, he escapes completely.

The atheist can point to no purpose, no possible meaning to and for anything. Yes, he can assign whatever subjective meaning to his life and actions that he wishes to, but what of it? Such "meaning" is, ultimately, meaningless. So what that the atheist believes his life has meaning, that he arbitrarily assigns purpose to his actions; the cold, materialist universe pays no mind, does not care. The universe does not care when the atheist suffers unjustly. What happens to him, at the end of the day, is random, meaningless, noise. No reason. Nothing. And when he dies, all that he is dies with him.

Sure, he can pass on his legacy - but what of it? Legacies are ephemeral things, most often ignored, sometimes squandered, at times openly repudiated. In sum, the atheist only has his weak, short, pain-filled life, and then eternal nothingness. One bare decade later, and almost assuredly he will be completely forgotten. Certainly in a millennium. Without controversy in one million years. All he was, all his accomplishments, forever, irrevocably lost. And ultimately, when the materialist universe ends in either fire or ice (depending on which theory of gravity carries the day), nothing - absolutely nothing will remain - not only of the atheist, but if anybody.

When the stars have all burned up their nuclear fuel and spin in the utterly dark, eternally cold depths of space, slowly losing all momentum; long after even the last of the behemoth black holes have completely evaporated away through Hawking radiation; when all matter has ceased to be on even a quantum level by the inexorable and ever-increasingly-accelerating expansion of space itself; for an eternity of eternities, all the atheist's fears, hopes, accomplishments and those of every other living soul throughout all time will mean, forever and ever, absolutely nothing.

Within the atheist's worldview, then, nothing can ultimately be good or bad - for the precise reason that nothing will mean, nothing can mean, anything.

When the child dies in agony that's just life. When the rapist gets away Scott free, that's just what happens.

There is no God; crap happens. Deal with it by ignoring it, or sink into irremediable despair.

To assign categories like right, wrong, good and evil to anything, he is forced to borrow intellectual capital from outside his worldview, since his has no self-consistent apparatus for dealing with such.

Richard Dawkins: the Peter Ruckman of Atheists

Spot-on summary analysis here.

STR: “We Must Continue To Ask One Question”

Stand To Reason has an absolutely excellent blog.  If you haven’t subscribed to their RSS feed yet, you should do so.

Right now.

Stop hesitating.

Really, it’s that good.

The latest blogpost is titled, "Abortion: We Must Continue to Ask One Question,” and it’s yet another out-of-the-ballpark homerun.

It’s logic, to quote VIKI in the (really, really bad) movie adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s magnum opus, I, Robot: “The logic is inescapable.”

Social Justice

I love the Stand To Reason blog. Actually, the whole ministry. But the blog is particularly awesome.

Friday’s post, “The Most Important Social Justice Issue Of Our Time,” was particularly good – though of course certain persons like Brian “Orthodoxy Schmorthodoxy!” MacLaren and the Rev. Dr. Lawrence Russel Taylor^TM PhD, Esq., Etc., Etc., Etc., ©2009, would heartily disagree with it – since to their thinking, the best way to defend babies in the womb is to exponentially increase the number of abortions by voting for the candidate who with a swoop of his messianic pen galactically increases federal funding (read: MY tax dollars, and YOURS, too, whether you agree with these…individuals and support a woman’s right to kill her child or not) for abortions.

I kid you not.

At least the Rev. Dr. Lawrence Russel Taylor^TM PhD, Esq., Etc., Etc., Etc., ©2009, seems to truly believe that the best way to reduce abortions is to increase abortions.

{{insert blank stare here}}.

Anyway.

Great article over on STR.

The Atonement in the Talmud

So the other day, a friend of mine and fellow pastor, Jim Bomkamp, asked me to consider posting the following article here. The author is an elder at Jim’s fellowship, Calvary Chapel Green Bay, named Dave Reynolds.

Interesting stuff…

---

Evidence for Christ’s Atonement from a Surprising Source: The Jewish Talmud

Introduction

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I determined to get away for a weekend, and I asked Dave, one of the church elders, to do the Sunday teaching for me. This document contains the fantastic message that he gave that morning. I have only edited it to cause it to be more Internet-friendly and apply more specifically to the blog reader.

The information that I will share with you today has existed for many hundreds of years, but is virtually unknown in Christendom. Some believers[1] have discovered this information and are now making it known.

When I first came across this information, I was surprised but joyful, and it greatly encouraged my soul. Nevertheless, I began to have some doubts, because it just seemed “too good to be true,” and I have a tremendous predisposition to believe that if something seems too good to be true, it usually isn’t true. However, when I went to the original source documents, I found to my surprise that they say exactly what they were asserted to have said, and were not the products of wishful thinking, as I feared they were.

This information lends compelling credence to the fact that the world of Judaism changed forever in the year 30 AD. Specifically, I will share with you today four documented miraculous occurrences that began to manifest themselves in the year 30 AD.

Historical background/sources

The Talmud

In order to make sense of this information, I will need to spend some time establishing the historical and spiritual background from a Hebraic perspective. For the source of this incredible story is a collection of documents known as the Talmud. What is the Talmud? There are actually two versions: The Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem (or Palestinian) Talmud. Both consist of two parts: the Mishnah and the Gemarra. The Mishnah, or codification of laws, is written primarily in Hebrew, and is identical in both versions. The Gemarras, sets of lengthy and rambling commentaries on the Mishnah, were both written in Aramaic, and differ somewhat between the Babylonian and Jerusalem versions. The Jerusalem Talmud consists of writings that were assembled between about 300 BC and about 400 AD, while the Babylonian Talmud was started at the same time as the Jerusalem Talmud, but completed about 100 years later. The Babylonian Talmud is more well-known and commented upon than the Jerusalem version, owing largely to the fact that the rabbinic academies of Babylonia survived those in Palestine by many centuries.

For many hundreds of years, the Talmud has been the principal subject of Jewish study. There is no direct analogy between the Talmud and anything in Christian literature. While Jewish people have studied and revered it for centuries, they do not seem to regard it with the same reverence as the Hebrew Scriptures. However, they do regard it with more reverence than we Christians would regard the great exegetical classics and commentaries of the Christian faith.

Just to make this perfectly clear, let me say that I do not regard the Talmud to be a holy book, or in any way inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Bible. Nor do I recommend that any Christian study it the way we should study the scriptures. However, I do think that since we Christians have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel[2], it behooves us to understand some of the background, as long as we approach that study carefully and prayerfully, always keeping in mind that all scripture points to the Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) and his redemptive work on our behalf.

Why should we care?

Why am I bringing this message to you today? There are two primary reasons:

To bolster our faith

First, I found this information to be personally encouraging, and my hope is that it will bolster your faith, as it did my own. The world teaches us that the Bible is a collection of myths that are perhaps useful to some people for the purpose of teaching general moral principles. However, this viewpoint ignores that fact the historical archeology keeps revealing more and more as time goes on that these so-called myths are actually factual events that really occurred. This information from the Talmud is like a literary archeology that confirms important elements of our faith, even though it was written by people who had no interest whatsoever in advocating or advancing the Christian faith.

To have a witness for our Jewish friends

Secondly, I hope this information will provide powerful opportunities to witness to our friends that are Jewish. It does virtually no good to witness to Jewish people using the New Testament scriptures, since they are taught from childhood that the New Testament is invalid. However, if we can witness to Jewish people starting from the Old Testament (particularly the Torah) and from the Talmud, documents that they are predisposed to believe, we have a better chance of actually engaging them in a discussion that leads to a chance to present the gospel.

Four miraculous events starting forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem

The amazing text from the Talmud that we shall consider this morning reads as follows:

“The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'"[3]

Yom Kippur

The first two of the miraculous events described in the Talmud have to do with Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement. Let’s look to see the Biblical description of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:

“1Now the LORD spoke to Moses after ^(A)the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the LORD and died.  2The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter ^(B)at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the ^[a]mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for ^(C)I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.  3"Aaron shall enter the holy place with this: with a bull for a ^(D)sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.  4"He shall put on the ^(E)holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments) Then he shall ^(F)bathe his body in water and put them on.  5"He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel ^(G)two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.  6"Then ^(H)Aaron shall offer the bull for the sin offering which is for himself, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household.  7"He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting.  8"Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the ^[b]scapegoat.  9"Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering.  10"But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make ^(I)atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.  11"Then Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering ^(J)which is for himself and make atonement for himself and ^(K)for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself.  12"He shall take a ^(L)firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground ^(M)sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil.  13"He shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the ^(N)mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, ^(O)otherwise he will die.  14"Moreover, ^(P)he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it ^(Q)with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.  15"Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering ^(R)which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.  16"^(S)He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.  17"When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel.  18"Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and ^(T)put it on the horns of the altar on all sides.  19"^(U)With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it.  20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.  21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and ^(V)confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.  22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.  23"Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and take off ^(W)the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there.  24"^(X)He shall bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on ^(Y)his clothes, and come forth and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.  25"Then he shall offer up in smoke the fat of the sin offering on the altar.  26"The one who released the goat as the scapegoat ^(Z)shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp.  27"But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, ^(AA)whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire.  28"Then the ^(AB)one who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water, then afterward he shall come into the camp.  29"This shall be a permanent statute for you: ^(AC)in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls and not ^(AD)do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you;  30 for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to ^(AE)cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the LORD.  31"It is to be a sabbath of solemn rest for you, that you may ^(AF)humble your souls; it is a permanent statute.  32"So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father's place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on ^(AG)the linen garments, the holy garments,  33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for ^(AH)the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34"Now you shall have this as a ^(AI)permanent statute, to ^(AJ)make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year." And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.”

Miracle #1: The taking of the lots

The first miracle has to do with the taking of the lots for the two goats on the Day of Atonement, as mentioned in verses 7 and 8:

“He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting.  "Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the ^[b]scapegoat.”

It’s interesting note that the word “scapegoat” in our language has come to mean the opposite of its original intent!

The Talmud gives more detail on exactly how the rituals described in Leviticus were to be performed:

MISHNA: “He shook the box, and took out two lots. On one is written, "to Jehovah"; on the other is written, "to Azazel." The Segan (a priest second-in command to the high priest) is at his right, and the head of the family [see above] on his left. If that of Jehovah was taken up by his right hand, the Segan says to him, "My lord the high-priest, raise thy right hand." If that of Jehovah was taken up by his left hand, the head of the family addresses him: "My lord the high-priest, raise thy left hand." He placed them [the lots] on the two he-goats, and uttered: "To Jehovah a sin-offering." R. Ishmael says: It was not necessary for him to say "sin-offering," but "to Jehovah" sufficed. They responded: "Blessed be the name of His kingdom's glory for ever."[4]

The Talmud further elaborates: “Why had he to shake the box? That he should not have intentionally taken that for Jehovah in his right hand (as it was a good omen if he took it up by chance).”[5]

Not only was this ritual done exactly the same each year, but it was also recorded whether the lot for the Lord was taken up by the high priest’s right or left hand.

Now, the Talmudic passage cited previously states that, for the forty years preceding the destruction of the Temple, the lot for the Lord NEVER came into the high priest’s right hand. What is the probability of that happening? Well, since there were only two lots in the box, there is a fifty-fifty chance each year that the stone for the LORD would come up in the right hand and a fifty-fifty chance of it coming up in the left hand. Now the laws of probability state that the probability of consecutive events happening is the product of the probabilities of the individual events. So the probability of the stone coming up in the left hand two years in a row is 1-in-2 squared, or 1-in-4. For it to come up in the left hand three years in a row would be 1-in-2 cubed, or 1-in-8. The probability of the stone coming up in the left hand for forty years in a row is 1-in-2 to the fortieth power, or one in one trillion, nine-nine billion, five hundred eleven million, six hundred twenty seven thousand, seven hundred seventy six. That probability is the same as predicting the exact second some random event will occur sometime within a period of thirty five thousand years.

Clearly, something extraordinary started happening in Israel in 30 AD.

Miracle #2: The crimson strap

In addition to the ritual of the lots for the goats, the Talmud describes another ritual concerning the goats that was also performed annually:

MISHNA: “He tied a tongue of crimson wool to the head of the goat that was to be sent away [the scapegoat], and placed him opposite to the gate through which he was to be transferred; and the one to be slaughtered, opposite to the place of its slaughtering. He went to his bull a second time, putting his hands on him, and confessing in these terms: "I beseech thee, Jehovah, I have committed iniquities, transgressed, and sinned before Thee, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people: I beseech Thee, Jehovah, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Thy servant: 'For on that day shall he make atonement for you, to cleanse you from all your sins, that ye may be pure before Jehovah.'" They respond after him: "Blessed is the name of His kingdom's glory forever."[6]

Symbolizing the scapegoat's throat having been slashed, a "crimson strap" was tied to each horn and passed under his throat during this ceremony. Before being led away to the wilderness, the crimson strap was tied to one of the Temple gates.[7]

Before the destruction of the original Temple, there was a High Priest named Simeon the Upright. During the years of his priesthood, according to the Talmud, “And the tongue of crimson wool, during the time of Simeon the Upright, always became white. But after Simeon the Upright, sometimes it became white, sometimes it remained red.”[8]

But the Talmud states that during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, “the red wool did not become white.” This would not have been alarming had it happened for two or three years in a row, but as the years piled up during which the crimson wool remained crimson, there was an increasing feeling of impending doom both for the Temple and for the Nation of Israel. Again, like the first sign, this sign persisted for the last forty years of the existence of the Temple.

Miracle #3: The western light of the Menorah

The Talmud said that “The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves."[9]

The Menorah, or Candelabra, was purportedly the one fashioned by Bezalel in the book of Exodus:

Exodus 25: 31 "Make a lampstand of pure gold and hammer it out, base and shaft; its flowerlike cups, buds and blossoms shall be of one piece with it. 32 Six branches are to extend from the sides of the lampstand—three on one side and three on the other. 33 Three cups shaped like almond flowers with buds and blossoms are to be on one branch, three on the next branch, and the same for all six branches extending from the lampstand. 34 And on the lampstand there are to be four cups shaped like almond flowers with buds and blossoms. 35 One bud shall be under the first pair of branches extending from the lampstand, a second bud under the second pair, and a third bud under the third pair—six branches in all. 36 The buds and branches shall all be of one piece with the lampstand, hammered out of pure gold.  37 "Then make its seven lamps and set them up on it so that they light the space in front of it. 38 Its wick trimmers and trays are to be of pure gold. 39 A talent ^[g] of pure gold is to be used for the lampstand and all these accessories. 40 See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

The Menorah stood approximately six feet high, and was placed in the Holy Place on the south wall, with its branches facing east-west.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about the daily ritual concerning the Menorah:

“The cleaning and refilling of the lamps, except the two most easterly, were performed by a priest every morning. If the priest found them extinguished, he relighted them. The two eastern lamps were left burning till after the morning service, and were then cleaned and refilled (Tamid iii. 9; Yoma 33a). The Ner ha-Ma'arabi (the Western lamp), also called "Ner Elohim" (I Sam. iii. 3), was left burning all day and was refilled in the evening. It served to light all the lamps. The Ner ha-Ma'arabi contained no more oil than the other lamps, a half-log measure (1 log contains the liquid of six eggs), sufficient to last during the longest winter night (Men. 89a).”[10]

Prior to 30 AD, the Western Lamp would sometimes stay lit throughout the night, and sometimes not. However, from 30 AD. onward, the Western Lamp was never found to be lit in the morning on any day for the next forty years when the priest went in to tend to the Menorah.

Once again, as this went on longer and longer, the Jewish leaders increasingly interpreted it as a sign of impending disaster.

Miracle #4: The temple gates

Recall how the Talmudic passage described the opening of the Temple gates.

“…, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'"[11]

This occurred nightly for the forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple. These gates were most likely the Nicanor Gates, whose initial opening is described by the great Jewish historian, Josephus:

“Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner, [court of the temple,] which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now, those that kept watch in the temple came thereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshewed the DESOLATION that was coming upon them” - (IV,5,3).[12]

The gates were fifty cubits high and forty cubits across[13], so you can imagine the surprise and alarm caused by their mysterious self-openings.

The significance of forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple

So what cataclysmic event occurred in 30 AD. to set off the miraculous things just described? It was the crucifixion of the one for whom the Temple was built in the first place. The one who, when asked by his followers about the beauty and majesty of the Temple, responded, “2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."[14] Why is it that the writers of the Talmud never associated these events with the rejection of Messiah? We may never know, but we can thank God that these things were recorded in the Talmud, and that by them, some of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may come to know that the calamitous events described came as the result of the rejection of the promised Messiah. We can pray that this knowledge will bring about the godly sorrow that leads to repentance and salvation by the blood of the Lamb.

Summation:

In this article, we looked at the odds of just one of these four miracles occurring continually every year for the forty years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The odds of all four occurring simultaneously for those forty years would be the product of multiplying that statistic times itself four times. Simply put, from a mathematical and statistical perspective, there isn’t even a computer invented today who could manipulate a number so large: this had to be a divine miracle intended to testify of Yeshua’s atonement to Israel.

The fact that the source is the Talmud, and that the Jews were the enemies of the Christians when the Talmud was written, proves that this is no hoax foisted by Christian sympathizers. The fact that the Jews still do not get the significance of any of these things beginning to happen the year that Christ was crucified is further evidence of the validity of these things.

Further sources for study online:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Jerusalem-After-Gibsons-Movie-Ending&id=1315918

http://wilkerson.110mb.com/index.htm

http://www.windowview.org/jandg.files/frms/talmds.frm.html

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/glory.htm

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com

http://ezinearticles.com/?Jewish---Christian--Biblical--Cover--Up&id=1042732

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/mysteriousevents.html

Footnotes:

[1] Reiland, Robert, “Jewish – Christian Biblical Coverup,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jewish---Christian--Biblical--Cover--Up&id=1042732.

2 Romans 11:17

3 The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

4 IBID.

5 IBID

6 IBID

7 Reiland, Robert, “Jerusalem After Gibson’s Movie Ending,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jerusalem-After-Gibsons-Movie-Ending&id=1315918

8 The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

9 The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[1]0 The Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=466&letter=M&search=menorah

[1][1]The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[1]2 Josephus, Wars of the Jews.

[1]3 James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, John Chisholm Lambert, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, http://books.google.com/books?id=OJUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=gate+of+nicanor&source=web&ots=xfWG-_HamZ&sig=RMdAiuLhBI3iKgJP7BY7VU5BIuU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

[1]4 Matthew 24:2

---

[1] Reiland, Robert, “Jewish – Christian Biblical Coverup,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jewish---Christian--Biblical--Cover--Up&id=1042732.

[2] Romans 11:17

[3] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[4] IBID.

[5] IBID

[6] IBID

[7] Reiland, Robert, “Jerusalem After Gibson’s Movie Ending,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jerusalem-After-Gibsons-Movie-Ending&id=1315918

[8] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[9] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[10] The Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=466&letter=M&search=menorah

[11] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[12] Josephus, Wars of the Jews.

[13] James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, John Chisholm Lambert, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, http://books.google.com/books?id=OJUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=gate+of+nicanor&source=web&ots=xfWG-_HamZ&sig=RMdAiuLhBI3iKgJP7BY7VU5BIuU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

[14] Matthew 24:2

Analogia Entis

If you don't already subscribe to the RSS feed for the Theological Word Of The Day, correct that oversight immediately.  TWOTD is a stupendous resource, giving very helpful summaries of important theological words and terms.  It's one of the blog feeds I read on a very regular basis, operating as I do under the twin assumptions that (1) you can't know too much about God, and (2) theology, being the study of God, is an indispensable resource for it.

September 26th's word was analogia entis - the "analogy of being," a very, very important concept, especially in light of so much of the ECM's love-affair with "chastised epistemology" which in essence states that we can't really know anything for certain about God except that we can't really know anything for certain.

Tony Jones summarized this sort of thinking well in his published dialog with Collin Hansen over the differences between the newbreed "Young Calvinists" and the Emergents:

Where we probably differ is not so much on theology, but on epistemology. That is, it seems the difference between the people you profile in Young, Restless, Reformed seem pretty darn sure that they've got the gospel right, whereas the Emergents that I hang out with are less sure of their right-ness. In fact, they're less sure that we, as finite human beings, can get anything all that right.

The Emergent party line is that, as result of the noetic effects of sin (that is, that among other things the Fall corrupted the mental faculties of man - which I agree with, BTW, and why I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Presuppositional Apologetic) we as humans ultimately can't know anything with an absolute degree of certainty save that we can't know anything else than that with an absolute degree of certainty.

In other words, since we are finite, fallen beings, it is impossible to fully know an infinite, holy God; and by extension (they say), we cannot know Him directly at all, but only obliquely, and imperfectly at that.

The argument, however, presupposes what it tries to prove - it begs the question, in other words.  It presumes that an incapacity for absolute knowledge precludes a capacity for moral certitude.

In other words, though I as a finite, fallen human cannot know God with absolute clarity, I can know what I know of God and what He has revealed of Himself with absolute certainty.

I can know, for instance, that God is good, holy, loving, and just, and that He took upon Himself human flesh, suffered and died, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead. I can know that His Word is true, and that any problems I have with that Word derive from myself and not the Word itself.

Anyway.

Back to the point of this blogpost...TWOTD posted a brief article on analogia entis which answers the ECM's "chastised epistemology" party line very well; turns out this isn't a new idea at all, and that the faithful in the church have dealt with this already in ages past and come up with a very sound position:

The belief that there exists an analogy or correspondence between the creation and God that makes theological conversation about God possible. While many would say that finite beings with finite language cannot describe an infinite God, theologians of the medieval era discussed this problem, seeking to resolve it by developing a theory which alloted the communication of words into three separate categories. Some words are univocal (always used with the same sense), some were equivocal (used with very different senses), and some were analogical (used with related senses). It is this third sense that the analogia entis finds meaning. While finite man cannot describe and infinite God perfectly (univocally), he can do so truly being that God has created man in his image and, through this, has provided and analogical way of communicating himself. To deny the analogia entis is thought, by some, to be a self defeating proposition since it would present the situation where an all-powerful God is not powerful enough to communicate himself to his creation.

Amen.

So - if you haven't already subscribed to TWOTD's feed - do it, now. Tons of good, solid stuff.

You'll thank me later.

Tony Soprano/Admiral Adama Celebrity Deathmatch

I've read a few reviews of this blogpost before, but finally, after it was linked over on the Blog Of Which We Do Not Speak, I went and took a gander myself...

...and I must say, very well done. Good - no, great analysis of the moral underpinning of both the Sopranos and Battlestar Galactica.

And a discussion of positive vs. privative evil.

Good stuff...

Junior High

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

You remember Junior High?  When petty disagreements between two people would resonate outward like pernicious ripples from the principals through all their myriad relations and relationships, sundering ties and restructuring alliances, like the European states after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

You know what I mean:

Hey, man; Bobby-Jim and I are fighting.  I don't like Bobby-Jim.  So because I don't like him, and you're my friend, you can't like him.

Oh, and Debbie-Sue's Bobby-Jim's friend, so you can't like her, any more, 'neither.

Basically, if you don't agree with me 100%, then I don't like you - and if I don't like you, my friends can't like you, either - otherwise, they immediately forfeit the privilege of friendship unless they toe the line.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.  We're all (at least nominally) adults now, and we can handle disagreements - even strong disagreements - without pouting, picking up our relational ball, and huffing off home to sulk.

We can disagree with someone, even strongly, and still like them.

In the context of the Church (and by "the Church" I mean the Church Universal, not simply the local church) this becomes and even greater issue and blessing.

The Body of Christ is large - very large.  And there's a whole, vast range of preferences and opinions on secondary and tertiary issues of faith and conduct.  The Bride is truly beautiful, not least of which because of the richness of the myriad tones and undertones in the grand chorus of the sundry voices engaged in worship, expression, discussion - and yes, debate.

I can appreciate what a brother from a different tradition than mine has to say; I can mull it over and consider its relative strengths and weaknesses, both without necessarily agreeing with a single thing the dude has to say or without casting him off as a heathen or unregenerate because of my disagreement with him.

There are hills that I will die on - foundational, core, first-order doctrines which define the borders of the Kingdom.  These doctrines revolve around the Person and Work of Jesus; disagree on these, and you are not my brother, you are not an object of fellowship - you are an object of evangelism.

Those doctrines that I will gladly fight tooth-and-nail over include:

• The full Deity and full Humanity of Jesus
• Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone
• His sinless conception, birth, and life
• Speaking about His birth - that it was a Virgin Birth
• His vicarious, substitutionary death in our behalf
• His bodily resurrection from the grave
• His return in glory at the consummation of the age

First-order doctrines which directly correlate with these, and which I will also gladly fight over include:

• The Trinitarian nature of God
• The fallen nature of man (born in sin, born innately a sinner, before any actual acts of sin had been committed)
• Jesus' Two Natures; He is One in Person, but Two in Nature
• (i.e., His Natures are not mingled in any way, yet with complete integrity of Person)

These (among others) are doctrines which separate between the Kingdom of God and everything else.  Compromise or reject any one of these, and you are not a Christian.

End of discussion.

Have a nice day.

Here's a Gospel tract.

These doctrines are precious and to be defended against all onslaught; we can never compromise here - never give ground...never.

But...there are a host of other doctrines which are important - even very important - but which are "in-house" arguments that, while they effect the spiritual formation and maturity of the one holding them, do not determine the eternal disposition of that one.

In other words, there are doctrines that are important, but are not salvation issues.

We might still disagree on these second-order doctrines - and even disagree sharply - but still be brothers, because we agree on the core essentials.

And I find great benefit from reading and interacting with as broad a range of Christian thinking as possible.  As I've said before, one of the reasons why is because it challenges my thinking - points out weaknesses and blindspots in my worldview that I wouldn't otherwise know were there, and gives me the opportunity to correct the situation.

Which brings up the main point I want to make with this blogpost.

Given that there is a truly broad area where we can disagree and still be brothers in Christ, and given that there is a large degree of permissible dissension in secondary doctrines, and given that secondary doctrines, though they don't necessarily impact on the salvation of the person holding them, are still important - given all that, there are going to likely be a great many areas where you and I might disagree.

That disagreement doesn't mean we're not brothers - it simply means we disagree on something which has a level of importance somewhat less than that of first-order issues of the faith.  Yet though it is of lesser importance, it is still important.

And because it's important, we should probably talk about it.

And by "talk," I mean that we will likely end up debating.

That's not a bad thing; again, as I've quoted before:

“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.”
John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II

Debate - or "vigorous dialog," if you get twitchy when the "D" word is used - is indispensable for clarifying our understanding of Scripture.  It doesn't mean we're on opposite sides of that border between the Kingdom of God and all else; it simply means we disagree to a substantial degree on something which, while we both lie within those borders, places us at opposite ends of a particular issue.

And it's important to be right about things which effect eternity.  I don't want to believe something just because my church teaches it, or my favorite teacher teaches it, or because, darn it all, that's just what I came up with on my own, thank you very much...and the best way I know of to constantly challenge my presuppositions is to (a) read those whose presuppositions differ from mine, and (b) interact with those whose presuppositions differ from mine.

The men and women that I respect the most are those who have challenged me, who have called me on the carpet, who haven't "gone along to get along," but have loved me enough to call me out and engage me on these important issues.  We may not have wound up finally in agreement...but I've always been enriched by the discussion.

There are men, fellow brothers-in-arms on the listserv for senior pastors for the movement I'm a part of who have seriously challenged me over the course of the last seven or eight years.  I value that - I greatly value that.

There are a few specific brothers who have challenged my deeply held views on things - and who I still don't agree with - but who have given me a different perspective on the issues in question and have given me the opportunity to really examine what I believe in a way that I couldn't have if I'd kept drinking my own intellectual bathwater, as it were, only thinking happy thoughts and interacting with peeps who already agree with me.

BTW - the point of debate shouldn't be to win - it should be to learn.  My opinions have shifted on things over the years as a result of this sort of true dialog, by discovering that my positions were weak and needed to be amended or discarded.  I am thankful for the brothers and sisters who have loved me enough not to leave me in my ignorance, but have challenged me to think.

All that being said: though I believe in the strongest possible terms that the richness of the diversity of the greater Body of Christ is a good thing, and that there is great value in listening to voices other than your own...it's also important to point out that I'm not suggesting that we all gather 'round in a great big group hug, sing kumbaya, forget about our real differences and just be happy-shiny-people-holding-hands.

Though you might be my brother, if we disagree on an important enough secondary issue significantly enough, I'm going to point that out.

And I fully expect you to do the same to me.

That doesn't mean we don't like each other and that we'll send some icky stuff through the mail to one another at Christmastide.  It means simply that we disagree on an issue that's important enough to contend over, while acknowledging the legitimacy of each other's place in the overall, greater Kingdom.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

A f'rinstance:

Rick "Syria's A Great Nation!" Warren is the big bad boy of the moment.  Personally - I don't care about Rick Warren.  I don't think Rick is the antichrist, I don't think he eats his young, I don't think he has the Number of the Beast tattooed to his forehead, hand, or nether region.  Do I think he's unwise in his associations?  Yep.  Do I think he's uncomfortably ecumenical?  Oh, yeah.  Do I think he's a pragmatist?  ...marginally, yes.  On some points.  Do I want to smack him upside his head and hopefully help some of those synapses to start firing in proper sequence so he never makes that egregious statement about Syria being a "great nation!" with "great support for human rights!" again?  Oh, you  betcha.  But do I think he's a brother - unequivocally.  Therefore, he will ultimately stand or fall before his own master, not me.

But, I reserve the right to point out where he & I disagree.  That has nothing to do with whether or not he's saved; it has everything to do with areas of disagreement between brothers that are sharp enough to warrant comment.

And no - it's not "nit-picky" to point out areas of disagreement over important-albeit-secondary doctrines.  And no, it's not an attack, so don't get your underbritches all in a bunch and go pout in a corner, rocking yourself into oblivion and wishing with all the fervency of your heart that nobody would ever disagree with you - or one of your friends - again.

Let's all take a deep breath and make that last little leap beyond puberty into adulthood: disagreement is not division.  Disagreement does not mean one person is saying, "me, Christian; you, unregenerate heathen pig-dog."  Disagreement is...disagreement.  And facing that disagreement is the best thing we can do to promote the health of the body - not to ignore it.  But name it, look at it, examine it, discuss it, and learn from it...and then move on.

All those marvelous creeds of the church arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

All the great theological terms we use on a daily basis, like Trinity, arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate and the need to further define what we mean when we say what we say.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

The very face of diversity in the Church Universal arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  The friction between the Roman Patriarch and the other Four, eventually culminated in the great Schism which apparently sundered the visible church into Eastern and Western communions - and which, ultimately, permitted greater expression and theological development, along with all the real garbage on both sides of the divide which were also attendant thereunto.

Then the disagreements within and without the Western Church gave us the Waldenses, and the Cathari, and the Hussites...eventually, a German priest nailed ninety-five points of contention with the institutional church of the time, and sparked the greatest controversy, the greatest debate in church history, the effects of which echo loudly down through the ages to me sitting here at my laptop plunking this out; I am in many ways one of his spiritual scions, given that I am Protestant.

And afterward; the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli over the Latin phrase, hoc est corpus Meum ("this is My body") helped formulate the Reformed view of the Eucharist...the disagreements on specific points of doctrine between Luther and Calvin shaped Protestantism for all proceeding centuries.  Between the Calvinists on the Continent and the British Isles.  Between the English state church and the Puritans. Between the Dutch Reformed and the Remonstrants.  Between Darby and...everybody who wasn't Darby.  The Pentecostal Revival. The great Fundamentalist-Modernist debates. The divisions in early Pentecostalism that led to the formation of the several Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of the Foursquare Gospel.  The discontent that Chuck Smith had with the Foursquare Church which led, ultimately, to his assuming the pulpit of a small, 25-member nondenominational church in Costa Mesa, California, in the mid-60's...which led, through a winding and exceedingly round-about way, to the planting of Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore here on the glorious West Coast of Michigan.

I could go on; I could cite the disagreement between Chuck Smith and John Wimber which eventually led to the formation of a new expression of the Body - the Vineyard movement.  And who doesn't love Vineyard worship music? Again - through disagreement and debate, though there was pain, though the differences themselves remain unresolved...the greater Body of Christ is yet again enriched.

I love the Body of Christ - in all her messy, often cacaphonous glory.  I love the deep richness of her expression; I love the wild wonder of the fulness of her song.

And I also love the truth.  And so, even while rejoicing in the differences, I recognize - we can't all be right.  And so, I test and weigh and examine the differences - I debate.  I affirm a brother's place in the Kingdom - while also reserving the right (indeed: the duty) to point out those areas of disagreement and hopefully provoke discussion about them.

It is not in the least bit inconsistent to affirm the brotherhood of someone I am at practical or theological odds with on non-essentials of the faith, while at the same time pointing out those points of contention and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

MacArthur on Pragmatism

Pragmatism is defined as:

A philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

Pragmatism happens to be the dominant philosophical assumption in much of the modern church - even among many who consider themselves to be evangelicals.  The hallmark of pragmatism is the focus on the question, "does it work."  Results are, at the end of the day, the criteria for assessing the relative rightness of any system, endeavor, or question.  Whether a thing is right winds up being a secondary concern; the "rightness" of a thing is more a function of how well it "works" than it is of how it corresponds with what is objectively right and true.  Therefore, something may be in a "grey area" but still be considered copasetic simply because it "works," and that "at least we're doing something."

Notice that: the emphasis is on action, and only then - and at least somewhat peripherally - on the essential rightness of that action.

Translation: the most crucial consideration of all is results.

As I'd already said: pragmatism is the dominant philosophical assumption in much of the modern church. Even many of my brothers-in-arms, while vociferously and vigorously denying that they have taken the pragmatist blue pill, effectively operate under pragmatistic premises.

I have heard from these guys things like:

Hey, that church has the most number of converts ever, and they're in the least churched area in the universe, man!

It's all about Sunday {{usually defended because either (a) "that's our culture, man!" or (b) that's when you get the most "bang for your buck" - both of which are quintessentially pragmatistic answers}}

Hey, man...doesn't the Bible say, "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, for him it is sin...?" {{...without defining what "good" is, and who it is who gets to define what "good" is, and how it is He defines it; "good" in this case is defined pretty much solely in terms of results}}

At least we're reaching people {{with what doesn't factor in as much as how - does the method of "reaching" mitigate the Gospel? Be honest, now...}}

And again, the classical pragmatistic answer when confronted about supporting something that is at the very least morally questionable, like providing condoms to teenagers "so that at least they don't spread AIDS and get pregnant"...:

Hey - at least we're doing something...!  What are you doing?  What do you suggest?

...as if in order to militate against doing something morally questionable, we have to present another alternative which produces at least comparable results. The rightness of the action is a secondary consideration; it's the results of the action which are all-important.

Look - actions are important.  The Gospel is an active thing; our God is an active God. You can believe all day long, but if you don't do, your belief is worthless - James tells us that.  I can sit and pontificate all day long on what the Bible objectively teaches, but if I don't put that into practice, then I have become worse than an infidel and have denied the faith.

Absolutely.  Amen.

But, those actions that I take are and must be predicated firmly upon what God has revealed as being right and good.

In other words, my first consideration is, "is this right?" Results, at this point, do not even begin to factor into the equation. Completely aside from results, the question needs to be squarely faced, is what I'm considering true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy, as God defines it?  If not - no matter what "results" may or may not devolve from that conclusion - then I cannot take that action as a faithful, obedient Christian.

There is an anecdote that I live by:

The obedience is mine; the results are His.

I am not called to be overly concerned about results; I am called to be very concerned about faithfulness and obedience.

The Bible says,

Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.

Interesting, that...no?  It is required in stewards that one be found faithful - not:

• that one be found fruitful
• that one be found with super-duper results
• that one be found doing the most things

Fruitfulness, results, and action are all very important in the equation of faithful Christian obedience.  But they are subordinal to the issue of right action, right results, and the right sort of fruit.

Johnny Mac, in his blog, just posted an absolutely brilliant article on this very subject of pragmatism, and how this really isn't anything new; the modern focus on "yeah, but does it work...?" which in turn leads to accommodation is something that the church has encountered before - numerous times.  Namely, in this article he compares the modern pragmatistic climate with the Down-Grade Controversy of a century ago - and examines the effects of pragmatism.

Leeman on Individuality and Community

Jon Leeman writes a positively brilliant critique of the oft-heard modern platitude, "individualism's the problem - community is the answer" here.

Guzik on Jesus

I'm finishing up on prep work for this morning's festivities at Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore, studying the last half of Luke 9, and I run across this gem from David Guzik:

Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side: Jesus taught them to have a more generous spirit. There are many that are wrong in some aspect of their presentation or teaching, yet they still set forth Jesus in some manner. Let God deal with them. Those who are not against a Biblical Jesus are still on our side, at least in some way.

• Paul saw many men preaching Christ from many motives, some of them evil - yet he could rejoice that Christ was being preached (Philippians 1:15-18).

Wow...

Asking hard questions - even vigorously debating - is important for the ongoing development of your understanding of doctrine.

I'd earlier read this on Dr. James White's blog:

"A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position."
John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II

Amen.

And very relevant given today's church's penchant for "dialogue" that leads to precisely nowhere. (BTW, I agree with White - I also need to get that book.) We must contend earnestly for the faith once for all given - that's a command, not a suggestion that can be ignored  because we want our Orthodoxy to be Generous so that Everything Must Change along with the Hidden Message Of Jesus - who it turns out is the penultimate Velvet Elvis.

Ahem.

Given that, there are debates that are "in-house," and debates that are "outside the family." And we need to keep the distinction in mind.

When it comes to intramural debate, we need to remember that we're contending with our brethren, who we might not agree with on all (or even most) particulars, and who love the same Jesus of the Bible that we do. Definitely, debate; that's how we refine our understanding of the Word - when our views & stances are challenged.

Yes, definitely debate...but never demonize.

Those who stand on the core orthodoxy of Scripture, though they're wacked in every other point, are still our brethren.

People can be confused about

• The timing of the Rapture
• If there's even going to be a Rapture
• The timing of the Millennium
• The structure of church government
• Egalitarianism vs. complementarianism
• The Gifts of the Spirit
• Bible versions
• The place - and the extent of the place - of psychology's legitimate insights
• Political leanings
• Modes of baptism
• etc.

...and a host of other issues, and still be our brethren.

It's those core, "first-order" doctrines that define the border between the Kingdom of God and all else, and they all revolve around the Person and Work of Jesus:

• His full Deity
• His full Humanity
• The fact that His two natures aren't in any way mingled
• The fact that His Person is in no way divided
• The Triune Godhead
• Jesus' death, burial, bodily resurrection & ascension
• His impending return
• Salvation by grace alone through faith alone
• etc.

That's something I need to keep in mind - I'm by nature a doctrinaire, an ideologue.

So it's of vital importance to keep in mind the distinction between an in-house debate and an outside-the-family debate.

In the former, we're vigorously dialoguing with another brother over important-albeit-secondary issues of the Faith; in the latter, we're contending earnestly with unbelievers over the very heart of that Faith, with the goal not of bludgeoning them with the Truth, but of being used as instruments of the Spirit in convicting them of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

Nate Williams goes to Mars

Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, that is.  For those who may not yet be aware, that's the church that's pastored by Rob "Jesus' Dad Was Larry!" Bell, author of Velvet Elvis and Sex God, and Exhibit A for what's wrong with the EmergENT side of the ECM.

Yes, yes, yes...I know, he's not really Emergent.

Because he says he's not.

...of course, he holds to all the essential elements of the ECM, with the possible exception that he's attractional.

But let's not confuse the issue with facts, eh?

Nate blogs about his experience in two parts:  Part 1, and Part 2.

Tim Chaddick's session on the Emergent Church

Just got done - finally - listening to Tim Chaddick's workshop session on the ECM. I was very deeply impressed with it; both since Tim's very Emerging in many ways (in the good ways), and very knowledgable RE: the ECM, and since he and the two other speakers (Britt Merrick and Brian Brodersen) were very fair and balanced - took great pains to point out that:

1. You've got to be really super duper careful about making any blanket statements about the ECM - you have to take each author/speaker/personality as an individual
2. Even with the nutjobs like Brian "Orthodoxy Schmorthodoxy!" MacLaren and Rob "Jesus' Dad Was Larry!" Bell, there's a lot of guys in the ECM who are actually quite good (my personal favorite, Mark "Blankety-Blank" Driscoll earned an honorable mention a few times during the session by all three presenters).

It was so good, I'm making the MP3 available to the Servanthood here on the Lakeshore - it really is the best short-format treatment on the subject that I've encountered.

While dealing very clearly and very firmly & decisively with the problematic and outright heterodox issues with the EmergENT side of the ECM, the tenor remained fair, balanced, even-handed, non-sensational...and just plain good.

If you weren't able to make it to the conference, you need to give Tim's session a listening-to.

Liberals are Crazy.

Now, the article refers to political liberals, but Dr. Lyle Rossiter's premise on the correlation between liberalism and mental disorder probably translates well to the question of theological liberals, wouldn't you think?

How long do you think it'll take Ricky Abanes to come to the Open Source dudes' defense, there, eh?

---

Okay, that last statement was more than slightly snarky. And unjustified.

Da Scoop'a on NOOMA

Greg Gilbert, on the Church Matters blog, has done a three-part series examining Robbie Bell's NOOMA videos.

Living in Bell's backyard as I do, I very much appreciate Gilbert's perspective, which I found to be fair and accurate.

At least, from my perspective, anyway...

Gilbert's Scoop'a on NOOMA
• Part 1


• Part 2


• Part 3

Good stuff.

"Come out of her, my people..."

I have lost good friends, including my father in Christ, because I have refused to label the Roman Catholic Church as an out-and-out cult.

Now, don't get me wrong; I don't for a second consider Rome to be a healthy church, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't consider it to be an institutionally faithful church, either.

But I don't consider it to be a cult.

Sorry.

For those who kick and scream and demand otherwise, you've got problems. No less an authority than Jesus Himself (you know... the whole "God in the flesh" guy, Creator of the universe, Head of the Church, etc., etc...) said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the church]."

For over a thousand years, the only coherent institutional expression of the church that existed on the planet were the Roman and Orthodox churches (which has problems all its own). Sure, there were other groups, but they were almost universally heterodox in their own right. So, either Jesus was wrong and you (who insist on calling Rome a pseudochristian cult) are right and the church really did cease to exist as an identifiable body for a period of nearly a thousand years, or you're wrong and Jesus is right, after all.

Guess who I'm voting for?

Again, please don't misunderstand; I'm not saying that the RCC is a healthy or Biblically faithful expression of the Body of Christ - it isn't. But neither do I for a second believe it is a cultic body on par with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Roman Catholicism (at least in its official doctrine) teaches all the cardinal truths of Scripture:

• The Trinity


• The full Deity and full Humanity of Jesus


• Salvation through Jesus' death alone


• The authority and reliability of Scripture


• etc.

(BTW, please understand - I'm not saying that the RCC teaches these and other cardinal doctrines of the Faith with equal, necessary clarity and Scriptural faithfulness, only that these core doctrines, though often buried in a thick muck of often weird, deeply settled doctrinal hooey, are still there. This article from CRI was actually a very balanced, very well done treatment of the issue which I think successfully navigated the treacherous doctrinal waters between the Scylla of false ecumenism embodied in the trend to "go along to get along" and turn a blind eye to Rome's massive doctrinal and praxis failures, and and the Charybdis of carte blanche, universal condemnation of all things Catholic and if you don't agree with me that the Pope eats Protestant babies for breakfast then you're one of them and you're a foul, foul apostate aaaah, aaaaah, aaaaaaaaaaa - you get the point.)

The problem arises that Rome has accreted a gob of doctrinal detritus that often obscures and obfuscates the core orthodoxy that is still there.

In other words, I believe it is entirely possible to be genuinely saved and yet still a Catholic.

I even believe it is possible that there are {{gaaaaasp!!!}} genuinely saved priests who truly love the Lord Jesus and are trusting in His merits alone to save them.

In light of all this, I found it refreshingly interesting to read this entry in my e-Sword commentary on Revelation 18 while studying to teach that chapter tomorrow morning here on the Lakeshore. From the People's New Testament, I read:

This invitation is given to the people of God yet in captivity, lest by remaining they should be involved in her destruction. As God once had a captive people in the old Mesopotamian Babylon, so he has a people in the spiritual Babylon. Ever since the Reformation began his voice has called on them to come out of her. Nor can it be doubted that he has many true and earnest worshipers still who have found enough of Christ in the mazes of the Papacy to have given him their hearts. The condemnation of the great spiritual despotism is not a declaration that all whom she has enslaved are the children of the devil.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Without diminishing the fact that the doctrinal corruptions of Rome truly do constitute a near-endless series of "mazes" surpassed only, perhaps, by Mormonism, and that it is admittedly difficult to see Jesus' finished work clearly through the thick fog of extra- (and often contra-) Biblical hogwash that Rome's gone and gathered around the simplicity of the doctrines of Christ and salvation, the fact remains that there is still enough of the "deposit of faith" in the deep labyrinths of the Roman Church that - I'm utterly convinced - there are yet some (and even possibly many) of God's kids still within the institutional bounds of the Holy See.

To summarize: I believe it is impossible to be Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness, or a Christian Scientist, or the like, and be genuinely saved. But whereas I would never encourage anyone to remain in the Catholic church, and I would never recommend the RCC as being a Biblically faithful representation of the Body of Christ, I believe it is entirely possible to be Catholic (or part of one of the Orthodox communions) and be genuinely saved.

As I'd stated at the outset of this blogpost: I've lost many friends I'd counted dear over this issue - including the very man the Lord used to bring me to faith in Him in the first place back in my Navy days. This is not an easy, cost-free stand to take.

I'll go ahead and close with an apropos quote from Luther:

Here I stand. I can do nothing else. God help me. Amen.

Myth and the ECM

Over yonder on the WordPress mirror of this blog, I've been interacting with an ECMmer regarding Chris Elrod's recent series of blogposts. Said ECM individual mentioned that Chris' writings were entertaining but confused the important issue of the "pre-easter jesus" and the "post-easter jesus" - the PreEJ being the historical Jesus, and the PostEJ being the mythical Jesus.

Among the other things that ECM Mike stated, was this:

It appears that the real core of our disagreement can be traced to a different understanding of the word “myth”.

I’m using the word to mean a story which reveals a truth, but is told through grand symbolic language rather than simply transmitting historical facts. Myth is not a synonym for false. All myths have some history and/or truth behind them and their symbolism brings that truth to life.

This is something I've heard more and more from the (liberal wing of the) Emerging/Emergent Church Movement - the idea of "true myth."

Here's my question: If the Gospels (and the rest of the Bible - say, Genesis, for example...) are to be regarded as mythical, and that myth is now "not really true but really true in a real sense that has truth but isn't really true unless you have the super-secret decoder ring..." How is that any different from, say, the claims of Asatru?

Compare ECM Mike's quote on myth to Asatru's explanation of myth.

First, ECM Mike's quote on myth:

I’m using the word to mean a story which reveals a truth, but is told through grand symbolic language rather than simply transmitting historical facts. Myth is not a synonym for false. All myths have some history and/or truth behind them and their symbolism brings that truth to life.

Now, Asatru's quote on myth:

The myths are stories about the Gods and Goddesses of Asatru. We believe they are ways of stating spiritual truths. That is, we would say they contain truths about the nature of divinity, our own nature, and the relationship between the two. We do not contend that the myths are literally true, as history. Rather, myth can be thought of as "the dream of the race" or "that which never happened, but is always true."

What is the real, substantive difference? If the Bible is only myth (even "true myth") then why is it any better than Asatru's Poetic and Prose Edda? Why is it any better a guide than the Sri Guru Granth Sahib of Sikhism? Or the Upanishads?

If the Bible (whether the whole thing, or the Gospels, or Genesis) is merely myth (even "true myth") then what possible reason is there to believe that Jesus is God and therefore your only Savior - why is that position any better than the Astatruar's devotion to the Aesir and Vanir?

Guys: IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCE.

I have to get ready for tentmaking. More later.

Holy Firestorm, Batman...

Okay, looks like I've gone and kicked myslef up a hornet's nest.

For all of my readers (the both of you), to bring y'all up-to-date:

1. I put up a blogpost commenting on one of the more amusing ongoing discussions over on the super-increasingly-aptly-titled open source theology blog.


2. Andrew Perriman, moderator of said blog and author extraordinaire, responded here.


3. I responded back.


4. He responded to my response.


5. I responded back.


6. He responded to my response to his response.


7. After a few rounds of the same, John Doyle responded...


8. I responded...


9. Andrew responded...


10. ...and after several more rounds, John posted his summary of the discussion thus far...


11. and on it goes.

Yeesh.

Now all my readers (you both, over there) are up-to-speed on the fracas thus far.

To summarize my summary above: The issue really boils down to a question of authority.

In other words, what is the basis for truth? If you jettison inerrancy, you are left with... well, nothing.

Andrew is maintaining that his "trust is not in the supposed perfection of a text but in the God who is revealed through the testimony of the text, through the historical experience of the community." My contention is... no, he's not. If that was in fact true, he'd agree with the doctrine of the supposed perfection of a text, since the Church Universal has always believed that (to varying degrees, it is to be admitted) - the point of contention really being a matter of whether or not that Perfect (read: "Inerrant") Text is self-illuminating, or whether there must also be magisterial authority vested in a separate entity (i.e., the Church). But the perfection of the Text itself is not in question, within the context of the "historical experience of the community."

Either way, sola scriptura or sola ecclesia, the (liberal wing of) the ECM evaporates. What the (liberal wing of) the ECM really believes is solo mio.

But that's just my opinion. Which along with $.50... oh, nevermind...

Anybody else care to weigh in...?

Perfect Example of Pomo Epistemology

This offering from our friends at the ever, ever-increasingly appropriately named "Open Source Theology" blog (an ECM group-blog) is a stellar example of the state of Emergent-type epistemology. I believe the opening paragraph says it all:

In 10 principles for reading the Bible in a postmodern context, Andrew proposes that contributors to an emerging post-evangelical theology adopt Principle 2 - "Let’s pretend it’s not inerrant." He suggests that we "set aside claims to the predetermined inerrancy and sanctity of the Bible, at least insofar as such claims force upon us standards of truthfulness that conflict with criteria of thought that we are not prepared to abandon in other areas of discourse (scientific, historical, literary, social, etc.)." Adopting Principle 2 "allows us to read the Bible as the unbeliever reads it; it helps to defamiliarise the Bible for us, which will be an essential aspect of the deconstruction process…" In the Genesis 1 as True Myth post we’ve been trying to make literal sense of the Biblical creation narratives. What if instead we were to read Genesis 1-3 in light of Principle2?

As with everything else I've reat from OST, the post requires no rebuttal; it's self-rebutting.

...and some ECMmers wonder why us iggnit' nukkle-draggin konsirvuhtivs get the willies when reading their stuff...

"Absence of evidence..."

Just watching one of my absolute most favoritest channels, getting ready to go to "tentmaking" to make some $$$ to pay off the publica-- er, that is, the lawyers handling baby Masen's case...

...anyway, the show The Universe was on, a re-run, actually... and I heard a dude who was being interviewed about E.T. say, in response to the apparently insurmountable problem posed by the Fermi Paradox RE: the quest to find other intelligent life "out there". Basically, astronomers have long postulated that the statistical probability of intellilgent civilizations having arisen on worlds orbiting other suns is high enough to be a near-certainty, yet we haven't seen a single shred of evidence of E.T.'s existence - which is troubling to Fox Mulder and others like him.

Anyway, this is, as I'd said, a re-run; I'd seen this episode before. And I'd heard the last time, this one quote that really sparked some thought:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
- Tom Spilker, JPL

I find that absolutely fascinating... because it really illustrates, I think, the maxim, "he who does not believe in God, it does not mean he will not believe anything - it means instead he will believe... anything."

The same dudes who make statements like the "absence of evidence" regarding E.T. usually nod in rapt agreement with Ricky Dawkins when he makes the converse statement regarding theism.

Lay aside the fact, for the moment, that the evidence for God's existence is truly overwhelming - so much so that it's almost nonsensical to even type that statement out, it's so self-evident. Why does the axiom, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" work for the search for Starman, but not in discussing the subject of God, I wonder...?