Four Temptations of Christ

by David Bishop

In the opening chapter of his book, “The Original Revolution”, author John Yoder examines the four major political attitudes that dominate Christian thinking today.  Yoder demonstrates from Scripture how each of these attitudes were also present in the days of Christ, and how one or two might very well have been a temptation for Christ, even if just briefly.  Whether one agrees with Yoder’s final conclusion or not, one thing is certain, his examination is a fascinating read.

Yoder begins by pointing out the fact that Jesus was born a displaced person in a country under foreign occupation and the rule of a puppet government.  He had come to preach good news for the poor, bad news for the rich, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the captives.   However, because the socio-political environment in which He had been born found itself far less than receptive to His message of liberty, justice and favor, the choices He therefore faced would be the same political choices later faced by a Pennsylvanian in 1778, by an Algerian in 1958, and by a Vietnamese in 1968.  That is to say, the social-political choices He faced then are the same social-political choices that politically oppressed people face today.

Realism

The first choice that Jesus faced was Realism.  This was the path taken by the Herodians and the Sadducees.  To the mind of a realist, unjust rule cannot be changed whether people want to change it or not.  It is the proverbial immovable object.  The realist, therefore, strives to save what he can by aiming at what he thinks is possible.  The Sadducees, for instance, had managed to keep the temple worship going, had managed to maintain public recognition and teaching of the Jewish law, and thereby had secured as much as possible a little breathing space for the Jewish people and their culture.

Yoder reminds us that it would be a mistake to condemn the realist as members of the establishment, because the fact is, the realist does work for justice and for change, and not at all without effect.   The work of the Herodians and the Sadducees, for example, included some very costly and effective, non-violent direct action against the desecration of their temple by the Roman armies.  Of course, however, in order to effect this, they had to accept and directly sanction the social system of Roman occupation under which they lived and ultimately under which they profited.

It is the same today.  Yoder argues that despite the theoretical separation of church and state, Western society is never without a chaplain in the army and in congress (parliament).   It is as though, “the service of the chaplain is to sanctify the existing order with the hope of being able to progressively improve it.”  Realists are the sort of people who advertise the use of religion as a means to improve one’s personal lot and ultimate contribution to society.  It does not matter much what religion just as long as it is not too uncomfortably violent.  Conservative talk radio is filled to the brim with people like this.

Realism was never actually a temptation for Jesus.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The realists were against Him from the very start; whether it was Herod, who sought to murder Him as a child, or Caiaphas, who claimed that it was expedient that His life should be sacrificed in order to preserve the order.

The Zealot

Standing opposite realism is what Yoder terms, “Righteous Revolutionary Violence”.  This choice was best represented by the Maccabees, and later in Jesus’ time by the Zealots.  The Macccabees and the Zealots were both underground political and military groups.  Today, righteous revolutionary violence might be best represented by groups like the Black Panthers or even Islamic terrorists.

The goal of the Zealots was to express its zeal for the Lord in holy warfare against the infidels.  Since the only language Rome understood was force, it was thought that the only effective response was force.  Similar propaganda is heard today among certain pockets within Christian groups.  Postmillennialists, for instance, and theonomists see Western economic policies and military might as one arm of Christ’s dominion.  In these pockets, Jesus’ ministry is understood as representing a constant struggle with the social option of revolutionary violence.

Yoder argues that this position was indeed a temptation for Jesus.  He was, after all, perceived by some of His followers as the nearest thing to a Zealot.  The Romans executed Him on the grounds that He was one.  He used their language, took the side of the poor as they did, condemned the same evil they did, created a community of committed followers as they did, and even prepared Himself to die for a divine cause as they did.

Yet in the end, Jesus did not take the same path the Zealots had. In fact, in the end, it was a former zealot, a member of His own community, Judas, that betrayed Him.

It must be understood, however, that Jesus did not reject the path of the Zealots for the same reasons that we might.  We might reject the path of the Zealots, because, “being secure, we would stand to lose in a revolution, or because, being squeamish, we want to avoid social conflict.”  Jesus was not afraid to die.  Nor was He afraid of conflict.

The reason Jesus rejected the path of the Zealots was because He disagreed with them on the meaning of “real need.”  The Zealots saw a change of society brought about a change in political rule as the real need.   Jesus disagreed.  He had not come to change society, but rather to effect the eternal salvation of the individual, therefore He saw no need in changing political rule.

Jesus rejected the path of the Zealots not because it changed too much, but rather because it changed too little.  He had come to preach good news for the poor, bad news for the rich, freedom for captives, recovery of sight for the blind.  A change in society could not and cannot effect this.  This is never made more clear than in that most clear of differences between Jesus and the Zealots; namely, the fact of His readiness to associate with the impure, the unrighteous, the publican, the Roman.  What was ultimately wrong to Jesus about the Zealot’s path was the righteous arrogance of the Zealot.  The problem was not that Zealot’s path produces a new order by use of illegitimate instruments, but rather that the order it produces cannot be new. An order created by the sword is at center still not the new heart of the kingdom Jesus had announced.

 

Isolation

A third choice was isolationism.  Jesus might have withdrawn to the desert and there remained, pure and perfectly faithful now that He had no longer had the stress and conflict of urban life to interfere.  The Dead Sea Scrolls have introduced us to several sizeable Jewish colonies that did just this.  We find this sort of thinking today among groups like the Amish, the Quakers, and to a lesser extent nowadays, the hippie communes of the sixties and seventies.

But Jesus did not withdraw.  Though raised in a small village, He left it behind, and having openly called His disciples to set aside their nets and their plows, He set out for the city and for the conflict He knew would be waiting for Him there.

The Pharisees

The fourth choice was that of “proper religion” represented in Jesus’ day by the Pharisees.  The Pharisees lived in urban society, but sought like the isolationist to keep themselves separate and pure.   They tried to accomplish this by keeping rules of segregation.   Certain coins, certain crops, certain persons, certain occupations, certain days, certain elements of culture were all considered taboo.

Yoder argues that today we find this thinking among Christians who believe it is possible to distinguish “spiritual” and “moral” issues from “political” and “social” issues.   The Scriptures may teach us that the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but it would be presumptuous on our part to suppose that the kingdom is also not a matter of criticism and protest.  If justice, peace and righteousness is not the business of the Christian, then whose business is it?  The Muslim’s?

While I agree with Yoder’s conclusion here, I nevertheless wish he had taken a more careful approach.  It is easy for one to overstep the bounds here, and commit a logical blunder.  One might conclude from this that to avoid revolution means to take the side of the establishment.  This is an appeal to a false dichotomy though.  It is like arguing that if you’re against the war then you’re against the soldier too, or that if you don’t vote then you have already voted.

We must be careful to stay within the bounds here though, rather than succumb to a logical error.  We must take care not to say, for instance, as some do say, that we take the side of the establishment if we avoid revolution.  I did not vote, for instance, in the last presidential election, not because I think voting is not the business of a Christian, but rather because I believe I had no actual choice from which to choose.  I see no difference in voting for a Sadducee over against a Herodian.  Withholding my vote was an act of protest.  One might argue as to the effectiveness of that protest, but this is of no consequence.  I remind one that I am not a realist.  I shall not surrender my choice to the “lesser of two evils” in order to effect some small change in the direction led me by an establishment dog.

The Fifth Choice

Jesus did not take the side of any of these four political choices.   He was not a realist, an isolationist, a Pharisee or a Zealot.   Rather, He brought to ultimate fulfillment the original revolution – that is, the creation of a distinct community with its own set of values and its own coherent way of incarnating them.  Jesus created around Himself a society like no other society mankind had ever seen.

Jesus gave the members of his society a new way to live.  He gave them a new way to deal with offenders – by forgiving them.  He gave them a new way to deal with violence – by suffering.  He gave them a new way to deal with money – by sharing it.  He gave them a new way to deal with the problems of leadership – by drawing upon the gift of every member, even the most humble.  He gave them intellectual clarity and freedom from guilt – by giving them doctrinal meat to digest and a heritage to appreciate.  He gave them a new way to deal with a corrupt society – by building a new order, not by smashing the old.  He gave them a new pattern of relationships between man and woman, between parent and child, between master and slave, a radical new vision of what it means to be a human person.   He gave them a new attitude toward the state and toward the “enemy nation”.

His is a society in which a person cannot be born into.  A person can only enter into His society by God’s grace through faith in Christ.  His is a society in which there is no promise of second generation members. His is a society in which only those He has chosen from eternity will enter.

His is a kingdom that, counter to all precedent, is mixed in its composition – racially, culturally, economically, sexually.  It is for men, it is for women.  It is for poor, it is for rich.  It is for slave, it is for free.  It is for jailed, it is for jailor.  It is for Zealot, it is for Roman.

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one I whom I delight.
I have bestowed my spirit upon him,
and he will make justice shine on the nations.
He will not call out or lift his voice high,
or make himself heard in the open street.
He will not break a bruised reed,
or snuff out a smoldering wick;
He will make justice shine on every race,
never faltering, never breaking down,
He will plant justice on earth,
while coasts and islands wait for his teaching.
– Isaiah 42:1-4

Nash’s Headless Heart Knowledge

by David Bishop

Ronald Nash has made a decent living for himself teaching and writing about some of the more difficult aspects of Christian philosophy in a way that makes the subject accessible and easy to understand for the novice.  He is good at what he does.   The problem is, he is not always correct about what he writes.

Take his book, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, for example.  Nash does a fair enough job explaining what philosophers like Hume and Kant taught, as well as the problems with what they wrote, and why he disagrees with them.  However, after reaching chapter 4, A Defense of Propositional Revelation, I find a Nash who appears to want to deny his Kant and have him too.

Nash begins the chapter by explaining Aristotle’s Square of Opposition.  Aristotle’s fashioned his device in order to explain the logical relationships that exist between four basic kinds of categorical propositions.

A) ALL S IS P

E) NO S IS P

I) SOME S IS P

O) SOME S IS NOT P

Nash goes on to explain that when we apply Aristotle’s Square of Opposition to the four possible positions concerning the issue of cognitive revelation, we get the following:

A) ALL REVELATION IS PROPOSITIONAL

E) NO REVELATION IS PROPOSITIONAL

I) SOME REVELATION IS PROPOSITIONAL

O) SOME REVELATION IS NOT PROPOSITIONAL

Right from the start I have a problem with this.  I believe that what Nash has done here is present us with a strawman.   He has just spent three chapters examining Kant and Hume’s argument that man cannot cognitively know the mind of God.  He has just spent three chapters explaining why he believes Kant and Hume’s argument to be false.  Now that we reach the point where it has come time for Nash to define and defend his own argument, he suddenly switches out the subject of the argument.  The argument is no longer man’s cognitive reception of revelation.  It is now suddenly revelation itself.

In other words, were Nash to remain consistent, then the application of Aristotle’s device should look like this:

A) ALL OF MEN’S UNDERSTANDING OF REVELATION IS PROPOSITIONAL

E) NONE OF MEN’S UNDERSTANDING OF REVELATION IS PROPOSITIONAL

I) SOME OF MEN’S UNDERSTANDING OF REVELATION IS PROPOSITIONAL

O)SOME OF MEN’S UNDERSTANDING OF REVELATION IS NOT PROPOSITIONAL

Nash goes on in chapter four to argue against something that the reformers never argued.  He argues against the idea that revelation is itself always propositional.  The reformers never argued this though, nor does the Bible support it.

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life

The reformers never argued that Jesus Christ was himself propositional.  Of course, He wasn’t.   Yet Nash argues as though they did argue this.

“Classical Christian orthodoxy certainly wishes to maintain that God reveals truth and that knowledge of this truth is an essential component in personal relationship to the Creator.  But it is equally clear that some divine revelation assumes forms that are not propositional.  God is revealed, for example, in divine acts that have occurred in history such as the Exodus and the Resurrection. But it is foolish to think of such acts or events as propositions.” (pgs 44-45)

Indeed it would be foolish to maintain that such divine acts as the resurrection is propositional, which is why classical Christian orthodoxy has never maintained it.

Nash knows very well what the argument is, and confesses to knowing it.

“A position might attempt to reply that the historical event cannot be revelation apart from interpretations of the event, interpretations that must be expressed in propositions.  I concede this, but also insist on making a common sense distinction between a revelatory event which cannot be a proposition and any accompanying interpretation which is.”  (pg 45)

Why does Nash insist on making a distinction that no one is denying?  Who among the orthodox theologians has ever argued that Jesus Christ is a proposition?  It’s a moot point.  Nash may as well be explaining to us the chemical compounds that go into creating Crayola crayons, because it has as much to do with his argument as does his notion of what believers have argued.

The argument is not, nor has it ever been, all revelation is propositional.  Rather, the argument has always been, man’s understanding of God’s revelation is always propositional.  If Nash understands this, why then does he insist on making a distinction that no one is denying?  The answer is very simple.  His distinction is an attempt to shift our attention away from the argument long enough for him to assert exactly what he has spent three chapters claiming to deny – namely, that man’s understanding of revelation is experiential rather than propositional.

“Evangelicals must make it clear that they believe revelation can be both personal and cognitive.  Orthodoxy contends that the ultimate object of revelation is God, not just some truth about God.  Whatever God reveals and which means He uses in revelation, His purpose is to bring people into a personal, saving, loving, serving relationship with Himself.” (pg 46)

How this personal revelation is received, Nash never explains.   He only insists that it is non cognitive.  Something is revealed to you, but you have no cognitive idea what it is that has been revealed to you.  You know, but somehow you don’t know cognitively.

The idea that I can be know something non-intellectually is utterly unbiblical.  The notion that I can receive information from God in some capacity other than by my intellect is nothing more than Pentecostal nonsense.  I was raised in Pentecostalism.  My own mother continues to this day to claim she receives information from God “in her spirit”.   It’s plain and simple horse hooey.

God is known and perceived and understood intellectually.  God is not known and perceived and understood any other way.  The apostle John heard Him, and saw Him, and touched Him with his hands . . .  just like Judas did!   What John heard, Judas heard as well.  What John touched with his hands, Judas touched with his hands as well.  But what John agreed with concerning what he heard and touched was utterly different than what Judas agreed with.

Once again, this subject comes to a simple matter of not understanding the word, faith. Nash has no clue what the word faith means. He doesn’t deny that it has something to do with knowledge (though what, he isn’t exactly sure), but he thinks it also has something to do with sensory experience.  He has no clue that it simply means to agree with God that what God says about His Christ is true.  God says a-b-c about Christ is true, and the justified man responds, I agree with you God that a-b-c is true.  There you go. Faith in Christ.  And I can be as sensory deprived as ever, and yet still have faith in Christ.   Blessed are those who do not see yet believe.

Nash closes his chapter with an illustration.  He asks us to imagine that a mother and her child are separated in a time of war.  Years later, the mother and her son, now an adult, find themselves living unrecognized by each other in the same village.  The one person who knew the truth about their relationship kept it to himself until he revealed the truth in a letter just before his death.  After the letter was received, the actual relationship of the mother and son was revealed.  Nash argues by this illustration that there exists a subjective relationship between mother and son that could not have existed without the objective information contained in the letter.  In this way then, Nash proposes that a believer’s relationship with God is both subjective and objective.

The conclusion Nash draws from his illustration has an insurmountable problem.  Nash has yet to demonstrate just how information is learned in a way that is non propositional.  His conclusion is nothing more than a baseless assertion.  The nature of the relationship between mother and son may have changed, but how mother knows son and how son knows mother has not.

We might say a husband knows his wife intimately.  Excepting the fact that the older translations prefer to use the word “knew” rather than the words “had sex with”, what do we mean by the words, a husband knows his wife intimately?   Is there any information even exchanged in the act of intimacy?  If so, is that information non propositional?  A husband may learn that his wife prefers to be tenderly massaged and romanced before the act of intimacy.  Does he understand in some other way than cognitively that this is what she prefers?  Does he not know cognitively that this is either true or false about her?  Her response to his touch may not be written, it may not even be verbal, but does he not perceive her response cognitively?  The knowledge exchanged between mother and child is propositional, the same as the knowledge exchanged between neighbors is propositional.  The nature of the relationship does not change this fact.

Even the serpent’s lie was propositional.  Has God said? That is a lie, you will die.  God knows that in the day you eat of it, you shall become as God, able to know good and evil.  This was all propositional, and it was received cognitively.   Adam understood what the serpent was saying, and he understood it intellectually.  This does not mean that knowledge received intellectually is evil.  It means instead, that agreeing with the serpent that God lies, is.

Nash has gone terribly wrong in the fourth chapter of his book.  He has argued that truth is received in a way that it most certainly is not received.  How do we know God?  We know Him intellectually.  We understand the message of His righteousness intellectually.  We receive the news of Christ’s effectual death on the cross intellectually.  We receive this news and we agree with this news in no other way than intellectually.

Emotionalism Is Not An Epistemology

by David Bishop

Let us call it the politeness pox.  It is a disease borne by keyboard and internet; a feeling of tremendous hurt that infects nearly 60% of American internet users.  Its causes are several, though its symptoms are always the same.  It is characterized by the inability to understand sarcasm and irony.  Brits are thought to be immune to it.   Americans, on the other hand, are highly susceptible.  No one yet knows why Americans are so prone to catching it, or exactly why they even care, though it is reasonably assumed that it most likely was spawned from the tremendous feeling of butt hurt that America’s rich, white founding fathers felt at being told to pay taxes, before they sent a bunch of poor people to fight and die for them in their quest for more power and wealth . . . er, I mean, independence.   “Give me liberty or give me death, but dontchya ever, ever hurt my little feelings.”

The first symptom of this mental illness appears in the form of an argument.  The argument will always go something like this:  It is wrong for Christians to argue, therefore, it is wrong for a Christian to be sarcastic.  If a Christian is sarcastic, or if he tells you that your Christ is a false Christ, (and especially if he can back this claim up with copious amounts of Scripture and solid, logical argumentation), then he or she is probably not a true Christian and so therefore, you should not listen to anything he or she says.

The argument is retarded for several different reasons.  First, it contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture.  Second, it is circular in its reasoning.  And third, it sounds like something Forrest Gump would say after plucking another chocolate from his momma’s fay-vo-rit chok-oh-lit box.

Scripture and the Politeness Pox

Acts 18:24-28   Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus.  He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.  He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.  And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him.  When he arrived, he greatly helped those who though grace had believed for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scripture that the Christ was Jesus.

Do you think those Jews who Apollos powerfully refuted probably tried to cry foul, Apollos, you hurt my feelings?

Acts 15:1-7   But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the other were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.  So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders and they declared all that God had done with them.  But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”  The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.  And after there had been much debate . . .

Do you think Paul was mean spirited to later tell the Galatians that he wished those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees would go all the way and emasculate themselves?

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came down to Antioch, I opposed him to his face.

Do you think Peter leapt up from his seat at the table, his cheeks awash with tears.   “Why Paul?!  Oh why, why, why?”

The Politeness Pox is a Circle of Stupidity

This stupid appeal to anti butt-hurtness is circular in its reasoning, because it has at its core the absurd notion that the messenger affects the message.

In other words, according to the argument’s logic, 2 + 2 equals four only when the teacher presents the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 in a certain prescribed sort of way.  If the teacher fails to present a proposition in a certain prescribed sort of way, then the proposition may not be true, for the teacher “was mean to me.”

The epistemological repercussions of such a view are staggering.  To see just how deadly stupid the argument is, consider the fact that the Bible’s assertions would all be rendered impotent in the face of evolution’s claims.   All an evolutionary scientist would need to do to prove his assertions correct is present his assertions in a more polite and civil manner than the Christian presents God’s.

The argument contradicts the gospel.  It logically concludes that the messenger affects the listener’s willingness to hear the message.  In other words, if the teacher is perceived as rude, or even if the teacher is indeed rude, then the student has no reason to believe the teacher is teaching the truth.  According to this logic, God saves not by the message of the cross, but rather by the attitude of the messenger.  This sort of goofy, boneheaded way of thinking makes the speaker’s attitude a part of the gospel!  Jesus atoned for the sins of His sheep?  Wouldn’t be true if the person proclaiming this message is rude.

Means

I do not deny means.  God uses means to shut eyes and to open.  And one of those means is indeed the attitude of the messenger.  But this does not mean that God is dependent upon the messenger’s attitude.

If God’s intent is to open a person’s eyes, then He will open a person’s eyes with sarcasm the same as He will open a person’s eyes without it.  If His intent is to keep a person’s eyes shut, then He will do it with sarcasm the same as He will do it without.  This disgusting, feminizing, homo-crapular notion that says sarcasm and irony are wicked in themselves is utterly without Scriptural merit.  Let me be frank, God hates it!  The truth is that God likes irony!  He likes sarcasm! The Holy Spirit inspired their use in His word.  God has used and He continues to use both as means to accomplish His purposes!

Are we Americans so high and mighty on ourselves that we cannot tolerate a little correction if it comes to us at the price of having our ego pricked?  Ahab couldn’t tolerate it, it outraged him.  (1 Kings 22)  Neither could Haman the Agagite. (Esther 3:1-6)  What nice company we find ourselves, eh?

This is not to say that Christians do well to go out of their way to be sarcastic.  After all, we are commanded to walk in wisdom toward outsiders, and to let our speech be seasoned with salt so that we may know how we ought to answer each person. (Ephesians 4:5-6)  But this does not assume sarcasm and argument are always wrong.  Salt does not only season and preserve food, it is also an excellent antiseptic.

An Atheist’s Sermon to the Choir

by David Bishop
David Mills’ book, Atheist Universe, may be an answer to Christian Fundamentalism, but it is hardly a thinking man’s answer to Christianity’s claims.  His arguments are often self contradicting and always irrelevant.  He does not understand epistemology, nor does he understand the epistemological difference between empiricism and dogmatism.  He claims, for instance, in his introduction –

“I will claim proof that the Bible is not the ‘Word of God’ because much of it has shown by science to be false.”

This is an imbecilic statement representing an impossible task precisely because the attempt is an appeal to circular reasoning.   The Bible cannot be proved true or false by empirical means, for the Bible’s claims do not rest upon empirical grounds.   The Bible need not pass scientific mustard, because the Bible makes no claims to be a scientific book.  It claims to be a dogmatic one.  Therefore, its claims need only pass dogmatic mustard.  Any attempt to make it do otherwise is an appeal to circular reasoning.

Mills does not understand this though, and he gives us nothing more than false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.  He does not address the Bible’s claims upon it own ground.  He insists instead that the Bible address him his grounds.  Worse yet, he insists that his own grounds are the only grounds upon which one can argue – an assertion that is itself self refuting!

Mills writes –

“Remember that the rules of logic dictate that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative position: that a god does exist.  Atheists have no obligation to prove or disprove anything.  Otherwise – if you demand belief in all Beings for which there is no absolute disproof – then you are forced by your own twisted ‘logic’ to believe in mile-long pink elephants on Pluto, since, at present, we haven’t explored Pluto and shown them to be nonexistent.  The idea of the Christian god only seems more rational than the pink elephants or the Greek gods because we’ve been brainwashed into accepting the Christian god by repetitive parental and societal propaganda.”

Mills has built himself a trap here from which he cannot escape.   He argues that the only acceptable evidence is that which passes the scientific mustard.  Yet he fails to provide sufficient reason for why we should believe this is true.   He simply presupposes that it is true, and then offers up a false dichotomy as the alternative.

In other words, Mills demands that we either accept his assertion that the only acceptable interpretation of observable phenomenon is that which passes scientific mustard, or else be left with accepting the notion that mile-long pink elephants live on Pluto.  By failing to provide sufficient reason for why we should believe his assertion concerning the scientific method though, he leaves us with a dogmatic assertion.   This renders Mills’ entire argument self refuting, for by appealing to dogmatism, he has succeeded only in proving that his scientific method cannot be trusted!

This is something few, if any, of the New Atheists understand.  If the scientific method is the only way, or even best way, to know truth, then this must be proved true using the scientific method!  But the scientific method cannot prove that it is the only way, or even the best way, to know truth.   And so the New Atheist is left with appealing to presuppositionalism which renders their argument self refuting.

The Bible instructs us when to trust our senses and when not to trust our senses.  It teaches us to lean not on our own understanding, but instead on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.  In other words, trust not what you perceive by means of empiricism, but rest upon the dogmatic propositional statements of Scripture instead.  This is logically consistent whether Mills likes it or not.

Mills is incompetent.  Most, if not all of the New Atheists are.  His argument is self refuting.  The battle of epistemologies has been at the heart of this matter from almost the very beginning.  It began the moment the serpent instructed the woman to trust her eyes rather than God’s word.  Mills fails to provide sufficient reason for why I should trust the scientific interpretation of observable phenomenon rather than the Bible’s dogmatic assertions.  He thinks he defends himself by arguing that we make ourselves open to any claims if we rest upon a dogmatic epistemology.  Which is exactly what he is doing!  Saying anything! And expecting us to believe his anything is true because some people agree with him!

The Bible is logically consistent.  That is the only test it need pass.  Mills assertions are not logically consistent precisely because he cannot prove his claim true by using the scientific method.  The claim that the Bible is God’s word is an assertion that is perfectly logical.  The claim that all truth comes by way of the scientific method is an argument that is utterly illogical, and Mills demonstrates why.

As is most often the case with the other New Atheists, it is obvious that Mills has failed to do his homework.  While he is correct to call into question arguments that appeal to empiricism, such as Aquinas’ “Argument from First Cause” (even here he misrepresents the argument though), he does himself no favor by insisting that the Bible address his complaints empirically.  There is a mountain of Protestant Reformed material on this subject representing more than six-hundred years of scholarly study.  Mills contends with none of it.  Instead, he opts to mine the popular book market for nuggets of nonsense for which he can do battle.  One might wish one of these New Atheists would take the time to peruse the works of past thinkers like Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Hoeksema, Clark or Robbins.  Perhaps then we might be presented with a book that has some teeth.  As it stands however, we continue to receive arguments composed from toddler’s logic, and books that amount to little more than a proverbial preaching to the choir.

Because You Are Not My Cheeseburger?

by David Bishop

John 10:26  “You do not believe because you are not My sheep.”

“You do not believe because you are not My sheep” requires that I know what “My sheep” means if I am to agree with God that John 10:26 is true!  Otherwise, I might as well insist that what Christ meant by “you are not My sheep” is you are not My cheeseburger.

If the teacher tells me that I am in the wrong classroom, and I do not know what the word classroom means, then I cannot in good sense agree that the teacher’s assessment is correct.

And yet some bonehead is sure to argue that I can indeed agree the teacher is right based purely upon the principle that the teacher is always right, even if I do know what the teacher means by classroom.  If you are one of these boneheads, then listen up, bonehead.

Even if I begin with the principle that the teacher is always right, I still cannot in good sense agree with the teacher’s assessment if I do not understand what the teacher means by classroom.  Why?  Because if I do not know what the teacher means by classroom, then for all I know the teacher might as well be saying I am an ice cream cone, in which case I not only argue the teacher is a liar, but I also prove myself a liar for agreeing the teacher is always right.

I say all this to some people’s shame. Most Presbyterians, Calvinists and Reformed today are of the opinion that a person’s gospel cannot be judged as false based purely upon their intellectual ignorance and/or rejection of certain gospel doctrines such as effectual atonement and  election (not to mention, justification, imputation, the Trinity, and Christ’s person).  These unbelieving Presbyterians, Calvinists and Reformed maintain the insensible notion that even though a person may reject the doctrine of effectual atonement, that person may yet agree that God is always right even though they do not understand what He means by things like atonement, election, justification, imputation, or Trinity.

However, if I do not understand what God means by atonement, then I might as well insist that He said He died for everyone, in which case I not only argue God is a liar, but I also prove myself a liar for agreeing that He is always right.

Addressing A Few Challenges (Preliminary Remarks Concerning Peter Enns)

by David Bishop

Challenge:  If we will accept that Biblical inerrancy should be understood in the sense that the Bible is our primary source of authority in all things, rather than in the sense that it contains no errors, then we will be compelled to leave room for the Bible’s writers to incorporate their ancient, mistaken assumptions about the physical nature of the universe in their spiritual reflections.

Answer:  This is circular reasoning on two fronts.   One, why should the Bible be our authority if every word of its content is not infallible?  If it is not infallible, then we must have used some method to discover this.  Would not that method we used be more authoritative than Scripture?  Why then continue appealing to Scripture if this is the case?  It would be like arguing that because children are less knowledgeable about truth than adults, we should therefore appeal principally to children for knowledge and understanding of the truth.

Secondly, the argument plays at being an appeal to empiricism, but is actually an argument grounded in an appeal to dogmatism.   It presupposes that all the ancient writers were wrong about their cosmology, while the modern writers are correct.  But the modern writers are empirical in their epistemology, while the ancient writers were dogmatic.  What sense does it make to argue that the ancients were empirically wrong if I can’t first prove empiricism a better epistemological foundation than dogmatism?  If empiricism makes for an unstable epistemology, then it is a good thing the ancients were empirically wrong!  They are more trustworthy!

 

Challenge:  The scientific evidence for human origins and the literary evidence for the nature of ancient origin stories are so overwhelmingly persuasive, that belief in a first human, such as many Evangelicals understand Adam, is not a viable option.

Answer:  In other words, because scientists believe one thing, and because the Babylonians believed another, therefore it is irrational for me to conclude that the Bible’s account of Adam must be understood as literal.   The argument is so profoundly stupid as to leave no doubt as to one’s dependency on the irrationality of Van Tillian logic.   The argument is like saying that because some guy I work with told me he thinks the problem with my truck is a worn tie rod end, and because a blogger on the internet tells me he thinks the problem is something else, therefore I should not listen to what my mechanic tells me.

 

Challenge:  Modern science is the most compelling challenge to Biblical authority in recent memory.

Answer:  I do not agree that modern science is the most compelling challenge to Biblical authority.  I do not even think it a serious challenge.   Goats have always loved to play the fool.  Their desire to worship the dust of the ground, monkeys in trees, and the stars in the sky rather than the God whose attributes are clearly visible, and who is clearly  created it all and is worthy to be worshiped is nothing new.   Rather, I think the most serious and compelling challenge to Biblical authority to date are those twin bastions of idolatrous American ideology – democracy and capitalism.  Both proved a challenge too compelling even for Robbins to best.

As We Forgive Those Who Don’t Trespass Against Us

by David Bishop

 

Of course Christians have the right to defend themselves. Loving my enemy doesn’t mean I don’t do anything at all to defend myself or my family. But must I defend them with LETHAL FORCE?

Matthew 5:38-39
You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:43-44
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

It has been argued that Christ was speaking only to persecution in Matthew 5. Love those who persecute you, in other words, but shoot everyone else. To this I say, humbug! Shall my adultery not count as adultery when I am not in adultery for my faith?! Or am I unjust to hate my enemy only when being persecuted for my faith? Why then forgive my debtors just as my debts have been forgiven? Why didn’t Christ say instead, forgive us our debts even as we forgive only those who persecute us for our faith?

The fact is, some Christians do not think it unjust to hate their enemies when their enemies are people trying to steal their TV at gunpoint. They know they are unjust to hate religious hypocrites, because they themselves used to be a religious hypocrite. But when it comes to rapists and murderers, prostitutes and drug addicts, they think they are more just than these kinds of people. They think a gun in their hand proves it.

Christ commanded me not to kill my enemy. He did not give me an out. He did not say, don’t kill unless . . . Rather, He said don’t kill. No, not even for that reason. Not even to save my family’s life. Don’t kill.

Someone will grasp for straws. They will say, Christ never said Christians must not defend themselves. I agree. Christ did not say Christians must not defend themselves. He said do not KILL to defend yourself. It is a sad commentary about some gospel believers today that they think first of killing their attacker when contemplating the act of defending themselves.

John 8:59
So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Are there no better options than a gun? Of course, someone will relate a story of how someone hid in their attic or basement only to be found by the intruder anyway. To this I ask, so? Why do some Christians think God is confused about this? What, He’s not sovereign enough to keep me safe if He wants to keep me safe? Or is it that He’s not just and righteous enough to take my life by the hands of another sinner?

But then, maybe it’s that I’m not a sinner, after all, and maybe that’s the problem with our thinking here. Maybe I really am a better and more just sinner than the guy breaking into my house. Maybe the gun in my hand proves it. And while I’m at it, maybe creation isn’t God’s either. Maybe the evolutionists are right; we’re all just a happy accident, and taking the life of another sinner bumps me a little further up the chain of evolutionary righteousness. Of course, it’s probably that I’m just deceived about what constitutes a sin when it comes to the question of defending myself and my family, but then again maybe I’m wrong.

If Rape is Wrong for You, Is It Also Wrong for Me?

by David Bishop

The fact that God has ordained nations and governments to use lethal force as a means to control the behavior of populations in no way implies that lethal force is not a sin.   God is the first cause of all things, and that includes all sin.  The fact that men attempt to usurp Christ’s authority by taking upon their shoulders the mantle of government and then using it to inflict lethal force in no way implies that their actions are not sinful.  Some people seem to be under the impression that because we can do something we therefore should do it, and think of it as righteous while we do it.   This is the method Douglas Wilson uses to support his argument for slavery.  He believes the mere fact that God ordained slavery automatically means slavery is just.

I don’t think anyone reading this blog needs a lesson in what unrighteous men think their duty is.  I think you are all well aware of the fact that God ordains the existence of governments.  But what I want to impress upon some of you is the fact that this does not mean human governments are righteous.  Remember Egypt? Remember Assyria? Remember Babylon? These are all governments that God ordained!

Ah, Assyria, the rod of My anger;
the staff in their hands is My fury!
Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of My wrath I
command him.
–Isaiah 10:5-6

Christ was very clear about the fact that His gospel was not a message concerned with political activism.  Nor was it about political insurrection. “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of  this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.  But My kingdom is not from the world.” – John 18:36

I am not saying that we are not sinners, or that even I myself am perfect in respect to this issue.   Rather, my aim is simply to point out how all this boasting about lethal self-defense is really nothing more than boasting in sin.   Too many pro gun guys leap to the conclusion that if someone opposes the use of guns in self-defense that this somehow makes the person a political liberal, or even worse, a false gospel convert.   But the fact is that some who oppose the use of guns in self-defense do so strictly because this is what they see in the pages of the New Testament.   It is a sin to kill – under any condition! ANY CONDITION!  I am no more just to hate my neighbor in self defense than I am to kill him in self defense.   That doesn’t mean I will successfully obey God in not killing my neighbor, but it does mean that if I do, I recognize that it is sin.

Love Works

by Mark Mcculley

Titus 3:14   And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful.

I have been married to my beautiful wife LInda for 33 years.  In our marriage, I am the one who likes to write the poetry.   I am the verbal romantic who likes to joke about needing to earn points from my wife.   And she is the one who calms me down by saying: “I already married you. What more do you want?” And of course I reply: everything!

Puritans are not sure if you are married yet. If they are consistent and not simply self-righteous, puritans are also not sure if they are married yet.   The more they  insist on the inevitability of mandatory fruit, the more puritans need to ask themselves: am I the fourth dirt in the parable, or one of the other three?

I remember the time before I was married.   Even up there on the platform before the “I do”, I was still anxious.   It was not too late for Linda to open her eyes and see me as I was, and then call the whole thing off.   So what I am saying?

We are married now.   It’s too late now to stop it.  Or, as my wife  says: I already married you.  I am not denying of course that in some sense what we do now is a condition of staying married.   The analogy breaks down between our marriage to each other and God’s love for the justified elect.    But I deny that what we do counts as evidence that we are or are not already married.

I am not an Arminian, and I don’t believe that the justified elect lose their salvation, and therefore I don’t think that Christians have to do stuff to stay in the new covenant.    I also don’t believe that the justified elect have to do stuff to prove to themselves or to God that they are real Christians.

Some Calvinists let you in the front door by faith alone, but then after they allow you a little time, they will let you out the back door if your faith is still alone.   In addition to faith, they ask: what have you done for me lately?   It would be like my wife saying to me: sure, I married you for love, but now I want to see the big house with the bird nests in the big back yard.

I am not denying that a husband could do more.   I also agree that a husband SHOULD do more.    But how much does a husband have to do in order to show himself and his wife that he really married the wife?  Notice, I am not even talking right now about keeping the wife!

When I walked down that aisle 33 years ago, what was my thinking?   Was it probation, so that I had so much time to prove to Linda’s parents that I was not  worth-less?  No.   Was it —- now that I am married, I don’t need to love her?  It’s not strictly necessary?  No and no.

We need to ask the question: necessary for what?   I deny the formula that says that works are not necessary for justification but that synergism is necessary for “sanctification”.   That “difference” cannot account for the biblical idea of sanctification by the blood (Hebrews 10:10-14).  Romans 4:4—“To the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due”.    The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has elected the elect in Christ and has blessed the elect in Christ with every spiritual blessing.

Wives need their husband to work for them.   Husbands need their wives to work for them.   Love works.   But works are not needed to prove that we are already married.

If Sovereignty Isn’t Good Enough, Then Use the Word “Arbitrary” Instead

by David Bishop

Dr. Robert Reymond’s six contentions with infralapsarianism are rather insightful.  Case in point, infralapsarians argue that the supralapsarian position depicts God as discriminating among men as men rather than as sinners, which in turn makes God appear to be arbitrary if not also the author of sin.   This argument at first appears to have some teeth, because it seems to appeal to God’s justice.  In other words, the appeal is made that it would not be just of God to discriminate among men with no regard to the fact that man is a sinner.  But if we delve a little deeper into this argument, we find that there is very little justice here, for God’s determination to save or to condemn is not a reaction in response to the actions of men as Arminians claim it is.

God’s determination to save or to condemn is not a reaction in response to the actions of men.  If this is true, then the infralapsarian contention loses its teeth.  The infralapsarian argues that God’s decree to save and condemn must have come before His decree that all men would fall, for otherwise God would be the author of sin.  But if God’s determination to save or condemn is not a reaction, then it is a cause.  In other words, God’s decree to condemn some and save others is the reason for His decree that all men would fall.   If it is not the cause of this, then we would have to say that God’s decree that all would fall was itself arbitrary.  The fact that all of God’s purposes center upon the revelation of His glory loses all significance in the light of this.

The infralapsarian has no answer for this.  Nor does he have an answer for the election of angels.  The election of some angels did not depend on all angels falling, for not all the angels fell (1 Tim 5:21, Jd 1:6).  True, we are not angels.  But if God’s decree to preserve some angels did not require the fall of all angels, then why should have a problem with saying the decree to save some people and condemn others did not first require the decree that all men would fall?

We find a similar challenge to the infralapsarian contest in Romans 9.  There, Paul does not speak of one vessel made from one lump, but rather two vessels made from one lump.  The infralapsarian argues that the lump refers to man after the fall.  But if this is the case, then why the need to make two vessels?  Wouldn’t God have needed to make only one vessel (the elect), and leave the rest in its sin, a lump?  In other words, if the whole lump were under condemnation, then what need is there to fit a second vessel for condemnation?  The passage only makes sense when we interpret the lump to mean the entirety of the human race prior to the decree that all would fall.  From one human race, neither sinful nor righteous, God made two vessels, one for honor (righteousness) and the other for dishonor (condemnation).

Which brings me back to the idea of God as the author of sin.  I don’t know why we should have a problem saying God is the author of sin.  Some of the confessions tell us He is not, so therefore I suppose we have to have a problem with saying He is, but this doesn’t make any sense to me.  It beats me how author does not mean first cause.  Funnily enough, I thought the word author meant exactly that.  I mean, after all, isn’t the author of a book the first cause of his book?!

If someone means to say that God is not the direct cause of sin, then I agree.  He does not do the tempting.  But that is not what is usually meant by the phrase, author of sin.  What people usually mean by author of sin is that He has nothing whatsoever to do with sin, not even as its first cause.  And with this I disagree.

As far as the word “arbitrary” goes, the appeal to it is really nothing more than a pejorative use.  God is sovereign.  He is never arbitrary.  Not even if I don’t care for what He has decreed.