Migrating to MyCCM

Identity, Archeology, and Israel

Perhaps it is somehow paradoxically true that anthropology comes before theology and theology comes before anthropology. That is, knowing ourselves comes before we can know God while knowing God comes before we can know ourselves. Perhaps this dilemma just recognizes that the 2 go hand in hand. The build and feed off of each other. My journey as a man seems to be marked with moments of knowing myself as a human being with human desires, emotions, weaknesses, etc and this helps me to know God a little bit better. My journey as a Christian seems to be marked with moments of knowing God by understanding his identity, power, emotions, etc and this helps me to know myself a little bit better. If man is made in the image of God, this makes sense. Overall, knowing myself and knowing God help me know God and know myself better…This sounds basic but how does one know God and oneself at all?

This is quite the epistemological question. But a simple place to begin is to appropriately understand the past.

Consider this notion: "If you don’t know where you came from, it is harder to know the reason for being where you are." …Is this true for your life? Consider getting to know your family. Have you had talks with your grandparents or parents about why they moved to a certain region where you grew up? What brought them there? Why did you grow up the way you did? Why were you raised in this church or parish or whatever? I recently had a long talk with my Father about these very points. It was very enlightening to me to learn that due to his frustration working as a warehouse forklift fetcher (a person who rides on the forks of the lift up and down to fetch boxes) in college, he decided to change majors from English to Accounting and move further from Los Angeles to raise a family. This ensured a better paying job upon graduation and safeguarded against a crappy job relapse. My Father’s history is what led us to the city, local neighborhood, church, and lifestyle 1 hour’s drive east of Los Angeles. I would have never known why I lived where I lived if I never knew where I came from.

Or if you like: "If you don’t know where you came from, it’s harder to know why you live the way you live." For example, a friend of mine, who loves licorice and can eat it by the 1 lb package, recently traveled to Arizona to visit her Father who was vacationing there. During her road trip there, she stopped to buy one of her token 1 lb licorice packages to consume as her breakfast on the journey. For her entire life she has had very little contact and interaction with her Father. Upon arrival at the vacation home she noticed that he had the same 1 lb package of licorice sitting on the coffee table – half consumed. She came to understand that this knack or instinct, as well as other likes and dislikes, mannerisms, and of course physical features, resembled her Fathers. Although living distant from her Father, the very source of her life in a genetic sense, she lived her life with similar characteristics of him. She would have never known why she lives the way she lives if she never knew where she came from.

In many ways, shapes, and forms, by knowing where we come from we can know why we are where we are and why we live the way we live.

In the case of my trip to Israel, this was the case in a most reorienting way. One can go to Israel and see the churches built over the sites of Jesus’ miracles and understand why we are where we are (spiritually speaking) and why we (as Christians) live the way we live. There is so much archeological and historical evidence that supports what the Biblical writers wrote. On my trip, for instance, it was easy for my faith to be built and strengthened when perusing around in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, cruising around Meggido where Josiah was slain by pharaoh Neco, and peering into the grottos of Nazareth. My Christian walk is tied to actual historical events and places.

At the same time, on the same trip, I actually felt disconnected from my Christian origins and I could not understand a bit how people could derive such Christianity and Catholicism - throughout the years of Christendom - from such an ancient culture. Christian life was hard then. But it was also simpler. But our modern churches, worship services, congregational dynamics, programs, non-profits, retreats, dress attire, monks, nuns, buildings, etc. are so complex. What a vast contrast. I can’t help to think that the modern Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches are missing the point in a very scary way. So, this disconnection – comparing a lifestyle of western Christianity with that which I learned had existed during the early church era – was disenchanting.

Overall, these 2 sides of the same coin describe my experience in Israel – bittersweet. I was able to get to know myself and God better as I was reoriented to the past. The present looks differently in the correcting light of the past. Not strange but just…different.
Additionally, the present nation of Israel is quite correcting.

Israel Today

Israel is such an interesting place in that, the place that gave birth to Christianity shows no upfront obvious indication of Christianity today. Out of a nation of 7 million, there are only 200,000 Christians in Israel today, where 50% are orthodox and 50% are catholic. There are virtually no Protestant believers. Except for the via delorosa, with almost hidden roman numerals on some walls in the "old city" Jerusalem, there are no signs indicating that this is where Jesus did this or that. Except for the tour buses and hard to find historical churches, the entire country seems virtually clueless to the places & life of Jesus.

I found myself thinking, "The Holy Land"? Really? Is that what this place is? What is Holy about this Land?" In my point of view there is nothing Holy about the land. But there is something indescribably raw about this place on planet earth called Israel. Tensions in the streets of Jerusalem are completely obvious. The preaching over the loud speaker at the nearby mosque can be heard by everyone within the few adjacent blocks - including the orthodox Jews as they get on and off city buses. Of course no one can miss these Jews, as their attire is striking. From the strange looks from young Arab teens as I cross the street to the passing of several casually armed chatty 18 year old girl soldiers, I can quickly see that these people are not only unique to me, but unequally passionate.

Passionate.

Passion is what describes the Israelis or Jewish people. Passion is what describes the Arab Muslim Isreali citizens and the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. Passion is what described the first Apostles and the enraged crusaders!

Passion for what? Passion for God and passion for the land. The land of Palestine is the battle ground for God. It is the birthplace of the world’s monotheistic religions. So, the heirs of the land, sons and daughters of Abraham, all want it for themselves.

Why? This goes back to the original paradox of anthropology and theology mentioned above. The God of Abraham is the ultimate origin of why this place is the way it is and why the people live the way they live. All branches stem from him. The Ishmael lineage, the Isaac lineage, and the adopted-in Christian lineage all stem from Abraham’s God. To be the people of God - to get in touch with their history, to live there, to thrive there - is the ultimate way to capture their true destiny. By physically being there, where it all started and their history erupted, they can very easily embrace their history. This enables them to know their true identity and know their God. Have you ever been back to the place you grew up years later? The sights, sounds, and smells trigger the memory and one can almost go back in time, reliving an event. Many times emotions erupt again as if the painful or joyful event was happening at present. Thus, the passion.

Furthermore, the people of the land must defend the attacker to contend for the place that is God’s and thus maintain their inherent identity. The fighting, wars, occupations, and all invasions make sense in light of this.

As a result, the people of the land resemble their God. Passionate. I like how C.S. Lewis put it, "'Safe?' said Mr. Beaver...'Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'" (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis). Our God is passionately good. Our God is not safe – He wants His ways by any means. Even and especially pain. "For He wounds but He also binds up…He injures but His hands also heal." (Job 5:17-18). We Christians often forget that the God we serve is a passionate, vengeful, and just God. We have a tendency of "nicing" the Old Testament with clever theories to reconcile a wayward conversation with a non-believer. He is unpredictably real and raw. The people of the land of Israel are unpredictably real and raw. They have been through a lot. But they resemble the real and raw God they came from. How well do I resemble the real and raw God I came from?

On the other hand, an unquestionable Christian resemblance, which is not quickly noticed to the naked eye, appears in Israel upon a deeper look. In order to find my connection in Israel - in order to find the source for the reason why I live how I live - I had to consider why God is not limited to a location on this planet. Because of Jesus, the floodgates of all of humanity - Jew, Muslim, Gentile, and Infidel - can know God anywhere on the planet. This is true across the pages of New Testament. Although I have no claim to the land or any passion for it as my inheritance, I have a passion infused by the Holy Spirit. Because of my adoption I am "joint heirs" (Romans 8:17) to a royal destiny and identity. Thus I am related to the Jew…(but not so much the Muslim). Thus, by embracing my heritage, I invigorate my passion and defend against the attacker of Christianity to contend for the place that is God’s – spiritually and intellectually.
Overall, Israel is intense to say the least.

At this point we will take a turn and move a different direction. No report on a trip to Israel would be adequate if it did not contain accounts of the archeological finds that validate the reality of the Jews that live there and Christians abroad.

Some Interesting apologetical items:

Byzantine church Mosaics

In the 4th century, after the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to Christianity, Helena, Constantine’s Mother, went to Israel to discover the sites that were important to the Christian faith. She designated holy places and venerated many particular sites where a significant New Testament miracle was performed, including where Jesus was born, died, and resurrected.

At many of these places, Helena ordered a church to be built. These Byzantine churches were usually small, perhaps the size of a modern house. On the floor a beautiful tile mosaic was usually laid depicting fish or something of historical relevance to the Christian site. Throughout the centuries of invasions, wars, and earthquakes, the original church was destroyed. But the ornate Byzantine mosaics still exist beneath the later crusader floor mosaic or later modern era mosaic which repeated the same design. Additionally, some churches were rebuilt in such a way that the new mosaic floor connected to the original Byzantine mosaic, interwoven to produce the same design. The only difference one could tell between the Byzantine mosaic and the later mosaic is the Byzantine mosaic is faded.

It was really amazing to be standing on the same floor that early Christians and church fathers stood on. You know that saying "Being there is everything", well it was true in this case. At many moments, with the help of our good tour guide, I felt like I traveled back in time and could picture what it was attend a church service at that ancient Byzantine basilica. These moments were not just limited to the Byzantine church ruins. I found that I could easily imagine what it would have been walk in Caesarea, Capernaum, Nazareth, Skythopolis, and Meggido. It is hard to describe but going back in time is somewhat close.

Continuing Archeological Finds:

During our trip, President Obama was visiting with the King of Saudi Arabia and making a speech in Cairo, Egypt. So we picked up some local magazines and newspapers to catch the local response to the Obama visit. While learning about the different political extremist views of the West Bank PLO, Gaza leadership, and Israeli left, we stumbled upon some articles of recent archeological discoveries in Israel. By the look of it, these were common entries in the local news. On any given day, there could be news of a different amazing artifacts dug up around Israel.

I knew Archeology has always been a major point of national pride for the modern nation. But I came to understand that there were significant continual efforts being made by the Israeli government, through many benefactors and the Hebrew University, to reclaim the history of Israel through archeology. In the last several years, there have been increased efforts and funding for more digs in regions and settlements in the West Bank recently annexed by the Israeli army. Last century, scholars in Israel and around the world have been mesmerized by monumental discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls and the walls of Jericho. Scholars are hoping that the discoveries of last century will pale in comparison to those of this century.

Some not so recent discovered archeological finds that we saw, such as the tunnels under the ancient Canaanite city of Jebus (Jerusalem), ancient high walls in Jericho, horse stables in Meggido, inscriptions of Pontius Pilate in Casearea, grottos in Nazareth, and many others, are still continual reminders to Israel and the world that the Christian faith is built on solid epistemically verifiable foundations. These and other frequent gem finds provide evidence that the description of places in the historical records of the Bible are in fact accurate. They show that the words on the pages of Scripture cannot be categorized in a myth genre. Rather these finds give readers and scholars alike continual confidence that the Bible represents historical literature that maps out historical places that actually existed in a space time reality. If the places existed, it is also highly likely that the people and events described in those places were real.

Compare the history written in the Old & New Testament to the book of Mormon. While reading Joseph Smith’s famous work last year, I was thoroughly convinced that this book, if not historically accurate, represents the greatest lie in the history of mankind. It would be infinitely more slimier in fictitious deception than the Da Vinci code, even more disgusting than any the modern suicide cults, because it is the life altering constitution of millions of good people. It is the Bible beyond the Bible of the called "Christian" Mormons. This ever growing population of brainwashed souls has been led astray by a book that speaks in a historical genre but is entirely fiction. Not one archeological find has ever been unearthed. Not one city wall, inscription in stone, temple, church, mosaic, painting, hand tool, pot, coin; nothing, nothing, nothing at all has been found that relates in any way shape or form to the places, peoples, and history described in the book of Mormon.

Thus, it is easy to conclude that if no archeological discovery has been made, the places described in the book of Mormon did not exist. If the places that people walked on and the places where events occurred did not exist, than the people and events described in the book of Mormon did not exist and were never real. It is absolutely sickening to read the book of Mormon, because it is clear that its sole purpose was to provide a believable history, written in the same genre as the historical books of the Old Testament, in order to deceive people away from true Christianity.

After reading the Old Testament for the last 20 years and knowing that there is archeological evidence that show the places written of do in fact exist, I can rest assured that my belief system is not founded on a myth or lie. Until an archeological discovery is made contradictory to Scripture, which there have not been any valid ones that I know of, I will continue to read the Old and New Testament as historically reliable documents.

My personal experience & observations to take away

In light of all of the above, I have 2 new points of growth in my own Christian walk.

First, acknowledging and learning archeology is very important.

Archeology is such an important component to our Christian apologetics. I hope that myself and other apologists dive into the realm of archeological discoveries and perhaps even participate in some digs. Roger, a fellow tourist in our group and graduate from Yale Divinity school, mentioned to me that archeological finds are a big part of the historical curriculum at Yale. Apparently most students from his Master program are required to participate in digs every summer to meet the degree requirements. I found that to be fascinating. While I would hate to be out digging in the Israeli desert all summer, it would definitely drive home the fact that an amazing and powerful history really did take place there. The dirt is waiting to give up more and more facts, it is waiting for us to learn more about our Christian heritage. So many keys of our past have been unlocked by digging in the ground. Thank God for archeology.

Secondly, learning the fascinating current and post-Christ history of the Jewish people is very important.

On this trip, I was definitely enlightened to new avenues of thought in Old Testament apologetics for my own personal Christian walk. Let me say this for the new Christian, because the word of God is alive, the reader of the Bible can be pierced to the core at the many hundreds of different types of foreshadows of Jesus that the Old Testament makes. Hopefully you know what I am talking about. If not, I beg you to begin to read the Bible.
But not only the Protestant Old Testament. What about the OT Apocrypha? Although this mainly concerns the history of the Jews, it is important for every Christian to know where the original branch has headed since Nehemiah. Why? Well in what little time I was there, I have found that as I learned to see the world and history from a Jewish perspective, I have been strengthened.

I hope that I continue to learn the history of the Israeli people by reading Josephus and the Old Testament Apocrypha. In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus gives a parallel account of much of what is written in the OT, through the inter-testament period. Judas Maccabeus, a leader of the Jewish people around 300 B.C., was such an important figure, but I know nothing about him. This is partly due to the fact that the OT Apocrypha is non-canonical, so Protestant Bibles do not read the Apocryphal books. But it is also due to the fact that the pastor of my church growing up preached that there were no books written between the time of Nehemiah and Christ, thus the silent years. This was obviously not true as the Apocrypha as well as other books were written during that time.

This essentially is just getting to know myself in a different way by getting to know my Israeli half-siblings more. Interestingly, the same friend I mentioned above with the Dad/licorice encounter, had a similar encounter with her half sister that she had never met. One day, upon learning from her grandmother that she had a half sister, she quickly got in contact with her. When the half-sisters met, it was love at first site. They were both around 20 years old and were ecstatic to experience almost a mirrored image of themselves. From cheeks, to eyes, to hands, to motions, to concerns, to passions, to the way they laugh, etc. The 2 were made similarly and had definitely come from a similar source. The 2 quickly became close friends. Throughout the last several years they have realized so much truth about themselves in getting to know each other.
In the same way, I hope I can meet and get to know today’s Jewish people – the Christian’s half-siblings. Because by getting to know our family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and parents, and siblings we will see our lives in a different light. A light that makes sense of why we live the way we live.

So, I hope to seek out some American Jews and get to know them on a personal level. Although most Jews are completely in the dark about the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, they are still the first children of God. They are, in a sense, our older estranged brothers and sisters. Perhaps we can teach them something new about Jesus and they can teach us something new about our Father.

"And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches , be grafted into their own olive tree?....

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen."(Romans 11:23-24, 33-36)

Unto the King,

Jeremy David Livermore, P.E.

Some additional items for the curious reader

Quick fun facts on modern Israel:

· The population of Israel is about 7 million. 6 million Jews and 1 million Arab Israelis. 90% of the Arab Israelis are Muslim.
· Water is the #1 problem in Israel. I found this hard to believe, not because of the how dry the climate is, but because there seems to be constant warfare, suicide bombers, and lurking enemies of the jews all around waiting to attack.
· $6.50 for a gallon of gas.
· 2% per year population increase. The average number of children per family is 3.
· School is 6 days per week.
· 90% of the water used is recycled/reclaimed water.
· The landscape, terrain, and climate is similar to central and southern California with deserts, irrigable valleys, and rolling hills.
· There is a great variety of fruits and vegetables, which are all produced from the Israeli farms. The Israelis enjoy salad and fruit with every meal. Perhaps it is still the land flowing with milk and honey.
· McDonalds and KFC are in all the major Israeli cities.
· The via Delarosa is now home to an Arab street market of vendors, clothing stores, +!@#$ ers, and general markets.
Highlights of the trip:
· Because of the thick accent, little brother didn’t understand a word that the tour guide said. Ok well other than perhaps 1%, I found myself translating.
· Before we began our tour each day, we ate as much as we could pound into our stomachs. The mass quantities of Jewish dishes were pleasing to the body and soul. Although, strange and weird at times, the food satisfied.
· You can buy 2000 year old ancient Roman coins in most souvenir shops and sometimes street vendors.
· Apparently, from the history, tradition, and the massive Cathedrals built, Jesus grew up in a grotto in Nazareth and was born in a cave in Jerusalem…the reader can research this more and make up his or her own mind.

The breakdown of the sites toured:

- Jaffa – where Simon the Tanner lived.
- Caesarea – where Pontius Pilate lived most of the time he was procurator.
- Meggido – where about 20 cities were built on top of each other. Many, many, many wars were fought over this city including the battle between King Josiah and Pharaoh Necho.
- Yardenit – This is Hebrew for Jordan. The Jordan is the place that Jesus was baptized. There is some sort of touristy building on the south side of the sea of Galilee where tourists and pilgrims can be baptized. There are changing rooms, ticket counters, a series of concrete steps down into the river, and of course a gift shop. There are plenty of extremely large catfish that swim up to the baptismal entrance. On the walls of the baptismal compound the scripture of
- Sea of Galilee – The sea of Galilee is so peaceful. It is now a vacation resort area where people jet ski and ride water boats. It has a very calm and relaxing atmosphere with campgrounds and hotels galore in Tiberius which is a major city right on the lake. You would never have noticed the churches & historical places if you weren’t taken there by the tour guide. It looks like any other lake with hills surrounding it. Jesus cast many demons out, preached, and performed many miracles here, but you would never know it by the looks of things.
- Capernaum – where Jesus tought at the synagogue and stayed at Peter’s house.
- Caesarea Phillippi – where Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and declared that upon this rock He will build His church. A temple to Caesar was built there next to the temple to the god pan, which was a roman deity.
- Golan Heights – an Israeli hideout fort on a hilltop with a panaromic view. Mount Hermon (+6000ft above sea level) and the Syrian border just is within view.
- Mount of Beatitudes – where Jesus gave the sermon on the mount.
- Beit Saida/Tabgha – where Jesus multiplied the fish and loaves of bread.
- Nazareth – where Jesus grew up. Currently, 35% of the population is Christian. This is 4 times more than any other city in Israel. It is a major metropolitan Israeli city. Interestingly, this birth city of Christ sits on a hill across the valley from the place where the famous last battle of Armegeddon is to be fought. It is a very busy city with lots of people. There is no sign of Jesus, no indication that he was here except for the big church built over the grottos where Jesus grew up. Over these grottos, early Christian basilicas were built. Presently, a monumental catholic church spans over the uncovered grottos.
- Cana – where Jesus performed his first miracle, turning water to wine.
- Valley of Hetin – in June of 1187, Solodin won a famous battle beating the crusaders. Crusaders were then forced out of the area to the coast.
- Beit She’an – an incredible Roman city, Skythopolis, was built here. Many telling ruins compel a reorienting of ones perspective on the impressiveness of the Roman empire. The city was destroyed in the great earthquake of the 8th century. The great Roman city was unearthed by archeologist last century. The the great Roman columns lay in the middle of streets and houses. Indicating the
- Dead Sea – the lowest point on earth (-1200 ft below sea level). When swimming, you float on the water. It is impossible to drown but there are lifeguards.
- Masada – where the last remnant of the Jewish zealots maintained a stand against the Roman army which crushed Jerusalem in AD 70. The stand was later
- Qumran Caves – where they found the famous dead sea scrolls.
- Jerusalem – you know the one.
- Eilat – where we rested and wake boarded at a beach resort town near the border of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

On N.T. Wright's Suprised by Hope

Isn’t the future fun to think about? I guess it depends on whether or not one is an optimist or pessimist. I have often wondered about whether or not our world will become like those pictured in the latest summer blockbusters of Terminator: Salvation, Star Trek, and even the latest X-men flick, Wolverine. Even more appealing than these though is the 1989 Back to the Future part 2 movie, which featured Marty McFly cruising around on his oh-so-sweet hover-board. I still wonder when our skaters will turn in their boards for ones without wheels.

What about the movie Left Behind with Kirk Cameron? Eschatological truth? Fiction? Is it close to what is pictured in Revelation and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? Or way off of the true teaching of Scripture? (off topic question - Is Kirk Cameron a good actor or bad?) After watching these latest films, my attention is captured only because the future is coming inevitably and that means I need to prepare for it. Suppose these films show the reality of our future, suppose they don’t. But the deeper questions are: what does happen in the future and what does that mean for us today? I am convinced that the future according to Christianity – and not just the future on this current earth, but the entire cosmological future – sheds a very bright light on our present reality and gives hope for us today.

Isn’t it true that our future affects our present life just as much - if not more - than our past does? , Christian or non-Christian, it seems that our future is in fact very influential on our present life. In countless ways my past has made me into the man I am today. Childhood in lower class suburbia, being raised in a small mission-minded church, and spending my teenage years on the sports field all the while trying to cope with a dysfunctional family, have definitely influenced who I am, how I live, and my overall worldview. (Meaning that my past experiences and past cultural influences, shape my thought life while not always overpowering my ability to know objective reality.) But more interestingly (at the moment at least), my future seems to influence who I am, how I live, and my overall worldview as well. This is because what I believe about my future is crucial to the perspective on life today.

For example, if I know that I will die tomorrow of a terminal illness, I will try to take advantage of every last moment I have and go hang gliding, cliff jumping, and take over the world – all in my last day. If however, I know that in 10 years I will become the next Secretary General of the United Nations, I will try to prepare for such a role by getting the higher education required and taking internships specializing in geopolitical socioeconomic governing.

Likewise, if I know the future that awaits me after death, I can better judge which course of action to take with my life before I die. Suppose I am a materialist and annihilation is what awaits us all at death. Well in that case, than not much in this life matters in the long run and I can do as I please because I will not be accountable for my good or bad actions. But suppose I am a Mormon or Jihadist. My life and actions definitely count towards which planet I am a god on or how many virgins I will receive.

So, at the least, there is an often overlooked but intriguingly strong point to make about our future - that what we believe about our future influences our now. So what does Christianity have to say this present world and about the future? Many things. Perhaps in another piece I will engage the many eschatological views (amillennial, premillinnial, postmillennial, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib), the final judgment, Israel’s place during the end times, etc. But what I would like to focus on is the Christian theology that pertains to the final resurrection of the dead. Because what we believe about the future resurrection affects us in the present more than any thing else.

N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope

For help discussing this topic I turn to the Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright, who is one of the world’s top biblical scholars. He has taught at Oxford, Cambridge, and McGill and has authored many important works on the resurrection of Jesus as well as other important New Testament themes (I highly recommend his The Resurrection of the Son of God). In his latest book Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright compels believers to reorient themselves in thought and life towards the eschatological final resurrection of believers and renewed creation in light of the historical transphysical bodily resurrection of Jesus. The characteristic style of Wright is definitely evident in this popular layperson level work. Here are some of the attractive and endearing features of Wright’s brilliance: sentences that seem to never end, contrasts that knock out pop-culture clichés replacing them with reluctantly forgotten insights, and consuming generalizations that summarize the state of all reality, Christianity, and Biblical themes.

Wright masterfully begins with an enlightening truth that the pop-culture understanding of heaven and the afterlife is not biblical. Nor is it what the early church believed. But, most of us have inherited a deep dichotomy of heaven and earth – leaving no room for the new heaven and new earth. “What matters” says Wright, “is eschatological duality (the present age and the age to come), not ontological dualism (an evil earth and a good heaven).” The hope of the early church at the soon coming end of age, Wright argues, was the final resurrection of all believers.

Along those lines, Wright furthers the point. The early church had no belief in an ethereal heavenly realm where disembodied souls hang out on clouds with God forever and ever as influenced by platonic thought. Instead, for the early church, “paradise is, rather, the blissful garden where God’s people rest prior to the resurrection.” This is the immediate life after death.

But there remains a “life after life after death,” says Wright. Which will be “a new bodily existence in a newly remade world.” In fact, the “spiritual body” of 1 Corinthians 15:44 is a mistranslation. Paul is speaking of transformed bodies, a transphysical body is one “whose material, created from the old material, will have new properties.” It’s not a difference between physical and non-physical bodies, but a difference between corruptible physicality and incorruptible physicality. Our bodies will become more real than our present bodies are (borrowing from C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce).

In the first chapter of part 3, he digs into the concept of salvation by seeing salvation in light of the future recreation/redemption of all creation instead of the Gnostic Western church’s view that salvation is just rescuing individual people from death and the bad physical world. This currently pervasive view is not at all what the Bible teaches. His perspective is that Christianity is not to lead people to heaven but to bring God’s kingdom to the earth through the rescuing and stewarding efforts of the Church and Israel. God will then complete his presently partial reigning not just over his creation but in it, by still using his awkward and rebellious chosen people.

In regards to the new creation, Wright sums it up this way: “What I am proposing is that the new Testament image of the future hope of the whole cosmos, grounded in the resurrection of Jesus, gives as coherent a picture as we need…of the future that is promised to the whole world, a future in which …decay and death will be done away with and a new creation born, to which the present one will stand as mother to child.” Then heaven and earth will be joined as in marriage. So it’s not about how we just follow Jesus into heaven but it’s about Jesus coming back to complete His rule on earth. For Wright, the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is a mistranslation of the word parousia. The rapture is not the living saved souls coming to meet Jesus, rather it is the coming parousia – the royal presence of a King – in this case Jesus. This passage needs to be examined in light of other New Testament passages.

Wright continues to say that the purpose of Jesus’ kingdom inaugeration is so “they could enjoy, already in the present, that renewal of creation which is God’s ultimate purpose.” Furthermore, Jesus’ Resurrection was actually the birthing of a new world. The creating Logos of John 1:3 has begun his new creation at the Resurrection. Now we are co-redeemers, participating with God in renewing earth and all of heaven throughout eternity. To this end we can begin to invest now and begin to bring hope to our world because our works will last to the new creation. “the surprising future hope held out to us in Jesus Christ leads directly…to a vision of the present hope that is the basis of all Christian mission.”

Some items to think about found in Wright

After reading Wright, I can say that most of the time I agree with him – especially in terms of the renewed body and the renewed heaven and earth for our new bodies to create/redeem with God in. But honestly the following few points were items to, perhaps, just brush over:

• The no-rapture theology
• Major generalizations and perspective on salvation
• Some rather lacking kingdom living examples

Regarding the no-rapture, the mistranslation argument he gave on pages 127-136 is stretching. For 10 pages Wright discusses different ways in which the word parousia is used in the New Testament as it is in 1 Thessalonians 4:15: “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” This is the word for Christ’s “coming.” But he says very little about the next 2 verses: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

Wright mentions a passage written by Moses and another by Daniel which infer that the meeting of Jesus in the clouds is to usher Jesus back to earth, rather than “stay up in the air somewhere.” This is the fit arrival for the King of the Universe who is coming to reclaim, redeem, and judge His kingdom. But this view doesn’t align with any of the traditional amillennialist, postmillennialist, or premillennialist views. These all confirm the rapture at the end or just before the end of the millennium.

Is Wright right? Did the early church not have the rapture theology that we have? Should we stick with the majority of evangelical Christians and keep our Kirk Cameron movies? Based on the argument Wright presented, the jury is still out for me on the rapture versus no-rapture.

Another controversial point in Surprised by Hope, has to do with major generalizations and salvation. I find that Wright’s understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism, which existed during the time of Christ, is such a heavy and influential notion for him that it can yield inappropriate hermeneutical misjudgments. He seems to use 2nd Temple Judaism coupled with the theology of the new heaven and new earth as an overarching guide to his study that other basic readings of Scripture are overlooked. This may be a false perception or too strong of an anti-embellishing critique, but it really is hard to dismiss when reading Wright. I am afraid that some core doctrines that the church has worked hard to develop and maintain could be at risk of being minimized.

This is exemplified in such embellishing generalizations about the entire purpose of something or the entire meaning of the New Testament. At these points, I must slow down and ask, “Really? Are you sure you want to say that?” In terms of salvation, he makes such statements like:

• “One of the greatest problems of the Western Church, ever since the Reformation at least, is that it hasn’t really known what the gospels were there for.”
• “Salvation, then, is not going to heaven but being raised to life in God’s new heaven and new earth.”
• “As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God’s promised new heaven and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new…reality…then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought…”

He suggests that the Churches’ – not just evangelicals but the entire Western Churches’ – traditional view is wrong. What about the regeneration of the soul, being born again, forgiveness of sins, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, divine election, direct access to God, relationship with a personal Creator, the beginning of the sanctification towards Christ-likeness, remission of sins, being more than a conqueror and alive with Christ, indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, etc? Where are these other key aspects of salvation which have been taught in our systematic theology courses since the Reformation?

There is one other weakness in the book. There is a lack of the power of the Holy Spirit, manifested in signs, wonders, and miracles, when Wright discusses kingdom living in light of knowing that the kingdom is here in a “now and not yet” form. The examples Wright uses are somewhat lacking in equivalent thrust of the powerful points he is making.

Strengths

Besides the minor weaknesses, some whopping generalizations that create dissonance against the sound teachings of the Reformation, and all of the eschatological issues I am unsure on, as I mentioned above, Wright does the Christian community a great service in writing this book. He reminds us that the inaugurated kingdom of the newly proclaimed Jesus in Acts, was brought to a climax when Paul travels to meet the current king and god of the world, Caesar. Although Acts does not go as far to say this, it clearly indicates that the spread of the message of the Resurrected Jesus meant that Caesar’s throne was being challenged and the grass roots movement of those in defiance of the king of this world has begun. Right down the street from Caesar’s palace, Paul was preaching the “kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). Wright puts it this way, “the kingdoms of the world are now claimed as the kingdoms of Israel’s God.” It may have taken 300 years or so, but at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the kingdom of King Jesus had taken shape and was moving.

Moreover, Wright reminds us that we all need to remember that the church is victorious in the end. We are on the winning side!! The work of the Holy Spirit to usher in the full sovereign rule of God is in the process of becoming complete. How often has this been put aside in our church sermons, Easter and Christmas services, worship songs, and daily devotions! Jesus is the King now as Paul preached and as John gave us the future – Jesus will assert himself as King of the earth. John seems to be screaming this out from the Island of Patmos when he writes my favorite passage Revelation 19:11-16, “And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure. And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty. And he hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written, KINGS OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Wow. Let Hope Rise!

Not only does the church come out as the vindicated group at the end of this age, but the Lord will avenge her adversaries! Then also, the hope of Israel is also met in the return of the King. Then the whole world is consumed by his glory as “the waters cover the sea.” Then true presence and being is revealed to the potential beings. This is Wright’s most forceful thrust – that the inaugurated already but not yet kingdom, to which we live and move and have our being, will become complete and actualized.

Behold the coming King. “Behold, I make all things new.” (Rev 21:5)

This teaching can’t be taken lightly because it changes everything on how we live today. For instance, I am a huge Lakers fan and love to watch the Lakers all season, especially the playoffs. If I have recorded a major Lakers playoff game and someone that doesn’t know I am anticipating watching it tells me that the Lakers won, I watch the game with exciting anticipation and a victorious spirit due to the soon coming victory – even in the midst of a back in forth contest. The spells in the game when we were losing, I can get over quicker, because I already know what the future holds – we win. The injustices that were caused by the referees when a foul wasn’t called, I can be get over quicker, because I already know what the future holds – we win.

(There is a common notion in sports, that was definitely true when I played, “The battle wounds hurts less if we win and hurts more if we lose.” In the case of the Lakers, we win very often, so my frustration in watching and the teams battle wounds during many games is often relieved!)

But more importantly, I watch the game knowing that the dumb mistakes, fouls, and injuries my own team commits during the game, will all be made right in the end. That all of the internal issues of the team, the competitive nature of the players to maybe overact at their teammates mistakes, to overdo it to impress the coach, all of these will be made smooth in the end. Even a players challenges to individual self-confidence and ability to play within himself, will all be affirmed and confirmed in the end.

Knowing that we win in the end changes the whole dynamic of watching the game go by. My frustrating reactions are turned into “that’s o.k., because I already know what the future holds – we win.”

Application

Overall, for the most part, I agree with Wright’s finding hope in the resurrection and reinvigorating the doctrines of the Christian Hope. In fact this book has strengthened and renewed my hope in this present life. My pessimism is weakened. Optimism grows as I read Wright, as he so eloquently put it, “Hope is what you get when you suddenly realize that a different worldview is possible, a worldview in which the rich, the powerful, and the unscrupulous do not after all have the last word.”

Wright so eloquently summed it all up saying, “Life after death, it seems, can be a serious distraction not only from the ultimate life after life after death, but also from life before death.” Basically, I do not just need to prepare for a life after death, but I need to prepare for life after life after death, the new heaven and earth conjoined together. This gives such a new perspective on my actions in the here and now. My present work for the kingdom, however insignificant, however much like a drop in the ocean it seems, matters in the winning and eternal kingdom of the true King. My hope for my own life is that what we do in this life matters into God’s future. It’s all “building for God’s kingdom.” This is also an answer to Solomon’s meanderings in Ecclesiastes, that what I “do for the Lord is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that’s about to roll over a cliff. You are not planting roses in a garden that is about to be dug up for a building site. You are accomplishing something that will become in due course part of God’s new world.”

How refreshing! How enlightening! The candles of all of history are overtaken by the light of the sun of Jesus’ resurrection and our future one. The future resurrection matters incomprehensibly; thus everything in this life matters in preparation for such a bright future.

In closing, there is nothing that gives me more hope for the future than Rev 21:5 & 6: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away. And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true. And he said unto me, They are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.”

Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Come.

Unto the King.

On Courage, Existential Philosophy, and the Audacity of Truth

“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” – Thomas Paine, The Crisis

What the deist Thomas Paine wrote better describes the measure of Biblical courage– the ability to advance what one reasonably knows is true when doubt weighs heavy and there is seemingly only hopelessness to embrace. To have this courage is essential to a mature Christian faith. It takes courage-to-be a Christian thinker while the world moves in and out of philosophical belief systems. Courage is necessary to face the onslaught of non-Christian worldviews and philosophies that pop-up again and again in everyday conversations. Moreover, because philosophy changes culture like nothing else can, I believe that the courage-to-be Christian in spite of the philosophical pluralism that abounds today is necessary for cultural change.

Just realizing that we live in a post-modern Western world is too shallow of an analyses. The truth is that there is a plethora of worldviews from strong philosophical systems of ages ago still to grapple with in the public square today. That is, Obama is half-black and president. But this does not mean we are in a post-racial world where racism is triumphed because a half-black man is the highest public office. No racism still abounds today. Likewise, Western societies are still negotiating with existential anxiety, lostness, and dread. We may not be living in such a post-existential world just yet. Among the many philosophical systems that abound today, it seems that there is a lurking existentialism that persists, virtually shadowed by other worldviews. Taken down to the individual level, the existential worldview for a non-believer seems to be the crux of the matter for a person to live for Jesus. After much truth is conveyed in an appropriate apologetic fashion, he/she typically contends “Even if Jesus is not a fairytale, what will he do for me? I already have sufficient reasons for my existence in this world!”

Additionally, one of the ultimate tasks of apologetics is to help remove the intellectual barriers and road blocks that a person has which keeps them from coming face to face with Jesus. At the heart of apologetics is Jesus. Once the struggles of doubt, competing worldviews, and falsities are removed, the soul has nowhere to hide. Light encounters darkness. A decision must be made. Apologetical truth and diplomacy can do nothing efficient at this point because this is where the pure and unadulterated gospel (good news) is timely and poignant. This is the point of conversion or rejection. The soul needs at this moment courage to face the truth of his existential lostness. It is at this moment a person can introspectively turn towards Jesus for healing & the satisfying meaning for his existence or continue to subjectively search for his existential meaning elsewhere.

This persistent existential search is comfortable for the rejecting soul and makes sense when one considers the humanistic backdrop of mankind’s history without God. People from the tower of Babel till now subjectively and objectively acknowledge that life apart from an ultimate higher purpose tends towards abstraction and hedonism. So where does that lead one to? – anxiety, despair, loneliness, dread, fear, and hopelessness. So man must have an alternate meaning to live for, a reason for being that is Godless but necessarily courageous. So man tends to get creative and build. Societies, infrastructure, and development begin. Man is in control of his own fate. Man creates meaning for his being.

About the middle of the last century, the existentialist movement of Western philosophy was flourishing. Thinkers such as Nietzsche, Jon Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and others courageously led the dreadful charge into the realms of death, nothingness, and absurdity. Man’s existence was wrought with tragedy, purposelessness, and hopelessness because man is alone in the universe and there is nothing else like him in it. But out of this nothingness and lostness, man creates something and goes somewhere. Existential hope emerges. There can be courage to live another day. Perhaps, in another blog more existentialist points of view can be developed.

While some of this train of thought eventually morphed and declined away into other philosophical genres during the latter part of the century, much remains at the heart of our current cultural milieu. Now, interestingly, the writings of Paul Tillich, a notable theologian during the 1950’s who responded to the governing voices of humanist existential thinkers, influenced President Obama. Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, is undergirded by the courage-to-be that Tillich resolutely declares is necessary for hopelessness. Hope without courage is unsavory and useless.

But more importantly, and I think Obama knows this, hope without truth is dangerous. Although it can lead to powerful optimism, when tried repeatedly, it will fatigue. Hope needs substance beyond the subject – a transcendent reality in which hope is grounded.

For the soul who rejects Jesus after truths are provided, it is clear that truth is more audacious than Obama’s audacious hope. In response to this existential rejection, Francis Schaeffer contended that “Man cannot make his own universe and then live in it.” There is a house bigger and better than the fort in the backyard. The audacious truth is: a habited un-lonely mansion awaits us post-death.

Overall, in terms of academic philosophy, existentialism has been tried and found wanting. Most of academia does not interact with it. But how existentialism was so and is still so courageously embraced (sometimes unknowingly) by many average persons and great thinkers alike fascinates me. And this is the point – even secular thinkers displayed great courage to think well and advance their humanist thought, even if that thought has to do with hope in spite of nothingness and creating one’s own existential meaning in the universe.

Unfortunately, Christian courage-to-be and think cogently about Christianity is what I find sadly missing from most Western Christians. As so many Christian young people lose their faith due to questions that seem to have no answers, I stagger in disbelief and shake my head in frustration.

Moreover, the pervasive decline in general intellectualism by many adult believers is just as surprising. Christians struggle to have any courage-to-be smart in a world pluralized with strange existentialist meanings & worldviews. This is a heartbreaking reality of our present church. Why do most Christians not even know what apologetics is? And where is the Christian courage to advance our hope? For the most part, courage just is appallingly lacking in many Christians. Courage to share one’s faith with a non-believer, courage to face one’s family of origin issues with a professional counselor, or courage to learn some apologetic type truth and exercise those brain muscles is at best dormant in many believers.

But the Bible is full of heroes who lived lives with courage. There were many heroes like Moses, David, Gideon, Daniel, Nehemiah, & Paul who experienced and exhibited the power and the boldness of the Holy Spirit. But more importantly, they were not just action heroes, they were people of fortitude and being. They were heroes “who, contrary to hope, in hope believed.” (Romans 4:18) These heroes had what Paul Tillich called the “courage-to-be.” This is a type of courage that is rooted in a reasoned filled faith which allowed them to look into the face of the anxiety and despair to find God’s purpose. It came from “being” in-spite of “non-being” –living in spite of death. The courage I am advocating is that which attacks on offense in spite of life’s failures and fears.

I’m reminded of playing quarterback in high school. Because my team was small in numbers, I had to play both offense and defense. Also, because my school had a small student body, in both numbers and size, my offensive line could only amount to an average 5’-5” tall 200 lb each. So needless to say, due to the onslaught of the defense, I scrambled and was sacked often. It forced me to learn the hard way how to have poise in the pocket and see down field to complete a pass when several hungry linebackers wanted to eat a quarterback sandwich. This is the kind of courage-to-be that Tillich is talking about. It’s the ability to look the world of despair straight in the eye and in spite of it, still be.

When thinking about the dread, despair, and loneliness that Sarte, Camus, and others wrote of, the competitiveness in me is fired up. If they can find a way to achieve meaning and hope, we ought to be able to do it and do it better. It is the Christian who has a better hope in the midst of hopelessness and has a better courage in the midst of fear, dread, and anxiety. “Where O death where is your victory?” Where O death where is your sting?” (1 Cor 15:55 & Hosea 13:14)

The striking, blinding, and deafening hope of a Christian is that Jesus is the hero of existentialism. He accounted for the anxiety, fear, and despair of the abyss. “He is not a refuge from reality, but a way into its depths.” (Brennan Manning, Abba’s Child) “Death has been swallowed up in Victory?” (1 Cor 15:54) Jesus did as it was prophesied, “He will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces.” (Isaiah 25:8) Deep in the heart of man’s lostness and loneliness, Jesus appears.

The courage we need to face the demands of our intellectual drought & the dread of our own existential journey is not elated passion or desperate clinging to Jesus during a trial or tribulation. It’s not the highs that come from an intense worship song or a spiritual retreat. This courage is the existential aliveness, awakening, and awareness of the present risenness of Jesus. Courage that is grounded in His presence and His rock solid systematic theological belief system of truths continually built - plateau over plateau by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, in terms of our need for rediscovering Christian intellectualism, it is not dull or passive. The insightful Brennan Manning states that “In this decade of much empty religious talk and proliferating Bible studies, idle intellectual curiosity, and pretensions of importance, intelligence without courage is bankrupt. The truth of faith has little value when it is not also the life of the heart.” This truth really needs a courageous heart. This is the intelligence that pursues truth for one’s own meaning sake, which is a worthy task, as Jesus says, “The truth shall set you free.”

Lastly, Christians must be thinkers who stand firm with courage emerging from the inside out. Francis Schaeffer further responded to this cultural drama saying “If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong – including man’s inhumanity to man.” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 16:13 “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.” These are strong words, but we can do it Paul, maybe one day as you did, when you literally did face death for your beliefs. We can have the courage to “fight the good fight” and “contend for the faith” even in spite of fear, anxiety, and despair.

By remaining true to Truth and advancing with such courage, the better Hope will last unto death.

World’s “Darwin Day” & Possible Responses

This February, the world will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species and the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Charles Darwin. Deemed as Darwin Day and administered by Institute of Humanist Studies, the day will be filled with all sorts of fun activities, such as lectures, conferences, and plain old birthday parties in various areas worldwide (see www.darwinday.org or www.humanists.org). Media agencies & major pop-culture websites will cover the organizations efforts to celebrate the occasion and most of their audience will acknowledge the headline and reflect, “Oh yes, thank God for Darwin,” then carry on with life as normal.

This will be a very welcome celebration for most people around the world, except Christians. So what ought the Christian to do on Darwin Day? Here are some possible responses:

1) Hire a Christian computer programmer to hack into the Darwin Day website to destroy the event.

2) Send hate mail to the Institute of Humanist Studies and condemn them in the name of Jesus Christ for celebrating a theory that contributed to the apostasy of Europe and the atheism of the world.

3) Post fliers around the neighborhood and send out mass emails launching a global campaign to convert the great great grandchildren of Charles Darwin to the Christian faith.

4) While few are gathered around the cooler at the office, single out the token office atheist to start an awkward intellectual debate showing Darwinism is defunct.

5) Use the day as an occasion to learn about Darwinism, the Origin of Species, theories of Micro & Macro evolution, Biological processes of natural election, and research performed in the ID movement to raise awareness and discuss the compatibility with Science and Christianity with families, friends, coworkers, etc on appropriate occasions.

6) Organize an international Intelligent Design Day to raise awareness of the results of scientific research in the fields of biochemistry and astrophysics that point to design.

While Christians can be appalled at how the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge in the ivory towers of academia attempt & succeed in holding minds hostage to this “atheistic” view, obviously, the last 2 responses seem more like the Christian thing to do. This year, let’s just start with 5.

Before we disagree with those who “know” Darwinism is a “fact” of the universe, we ought to figure out why we disagree. Do we have a wrongful bias to Darwin and theories of evolution? Can I really learn the truth about Macro & Micro evolution, natural selection, the big bang theories, the age of the universe theories, what the Bible has to say about evolution or astrophysics, etc. We all could use a little academic honesty and confess that we are not the experts on everything. Let me help start a mutation of our worldview by introducing 4 basics views on relationship between science and religion.

#1) Conflict View

This is the most common perception of our day. It’s the battle between Scientific Materialism and Biblical Literalism. Each sees themselves as THE path to true knowledge, at the expense of religion (subjective) or science (conspiracy to prove atheism). It’s one or the other. Media likes the conflict and is biased to the side of science.

#2) Independence View

This view shows a separation but not war between human discovery and revealed truth. That is, science is limited to the natural realms; to the objective, public, & repeatable data. Whereas, religion is limited to the spiritual realms; to order, beauty, & inner-life experiences.

#3) Dialogue View

This view is the historical one: Christianity had a strong influence in establishing the right worldview for science. Methodologies are not distinct. Scientist have faith & theologians have reason (scientist must trust their instruments; theologians must think critically). Both sides rely on personal judgment and authority.

#4) Integration View

This view develops a unified worldview where God’s action in Nature is plausible. In this view one must be very aware of naturalistic presuppositions and limitations. It’s Scientific Apologetics where one can use scientific data to argue for the existence of God.

Without going into the reasons, the 4th view is what I recommend. Perhaps you can research for yourself which view is best to hold. You see, there are many things to learn and we can prepare intellectually to use the celebration to our advantage.

Overall, we need to reclaim the intellectual influence in the western world that we lost. We have to take on the giant – science. God’s perspective should be our perspective here. As a result we can be ambassadors not soldiers; winning friends and influencing people. We tend to want to preach at them and score points, winning the battle – but losing the war.

Hopefully, at the end of Darwin Day, the best of these views on science and religion will survive: survival of the fittest.

On Wonder, Children, and This Crazy World

For me and for many people around the world, 2008 was a “wonderful” year. I do not mean wonderful in the common sense of the word. I mean it has been full of wonder – curiosity about how and why the world is as it is but not the way it ought to be.

This type of wonder is innocent.

“Wonder about this world” is what my undergraduate philosophy professor said he was “trying to cultivate in us”. I think he really did, for me at least. He would repeat this many times and call us “dear students.” That was his way of helping us realize how silly we were and how amazing this world is. I went on to learn that wonder is the primary starting line and for any philosopher to develop a philosophy on this world and life. It is also his/her motivation, an “itch”, if you will. Albert Einstein took it a bit further when he put it this way, “He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.”

So what makes a good wonderer? Parents would answer, “Children!” The greatest philosophers of all are the constant innocent wonderers, the children. The imagination of a child is fascinating! Children always questioning and always learning. They grow and learn and grow and learn and hopefully, become the person they are designed to be.

As a child growing up in southern California, U.S.A, there was plenty to wonder about. Being a curious passenger in my parent’s car, I would have my biggest wonder moments. Driving down the freeways approaching a massive freeway interchange network of bridges, I always would wonder how that concrete bridge can span over 200 feet from one column to the other resisting all of the gravity, wind, and earthquake forces. The “how” has always fascinated me.

Speaking of children, Jesus offers insight in this scenario: “…came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, ‘Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’”…Jesus replied, “unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3-4) This is a big statement and is often overlooked by the western church. It is a radical teaching about being extremely opposite than what we have a tendency to be. To view this world differently than we do as grown ups.

What is it about this sense of being childlike that Jesus calls us to? Why is it so important? Why did the disciples ask to be the greatest in the kingdom when Jesus was constantly surrounding himself with the poor, the outcast, the “others” of society? The observance of His compassion for our world’s brokenness could not have gone unnoticed by the disciples. Right?

Before I try to figure the answer to those questions out, I need to interject my awkward identification with the disciples. In 2008, I wondered about how there are extreme polar opposites for most of everything in this world. Most often I wonder about how this world could be the way it is…and not cave in on itself. It seems so crazy! Then I get confused as to why it doesn’t cave in on itself. For starters, I wonder about…

· How could vast wealth and incredible poverty exist directly across the same street in Los Angeles?

· How could one country in Africa experience tremendous affluence do to its middle eastern ties while another country next door suffers under the relentless curse of hunger and starvation?

· How could a man could commit suicide after dressing up in a Santa outfit on Christmas and burn a house full of people, including his former wife, in a civilized upscale suburban neighborhood of a 1st world country?

· How could mental illness ravish and destroy families yet the church has done almost nothing to reach out, let alone acknowledge the condition?

· How could it take over 225 years to elect a black president in the U.S.A.?

· How “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

· How could Obama raise so much money during his campaign?

· How could the U.S.A. invade Iraq on such pretenses?

· Etc.

Perhaps this type of wonder is shallow or just ill-informed.

Personally speaking,

· How it is easier for an “outcast” of society to accept another “outcast” than it is for me to just listen to a man or woman in need talk for an hour.

· How can I covet even bigger house despite going to Africa twice in 2008 and seeing that most people can’t afford food let alone a house with even a tin roof.

· How can I quickly be judgmental to the unfortunate and still not be content with what I have – or not even acknowledge that is all God’s stuff anyway.

· How could God love me like a Father loves a child despite my ugly pride.

· How can I forget almost about everything the Lord has taught me – no matter how powerful or impactful.

· Etc.

This type of wonder seems to just be deeply rooted in my brokenness.

But these are some realistic wonders I have had. Honest, but true. I need to sit with the disciples and hear Jesus’ rebuke as I have stared in the face of each hardship listed above and hardened quickly after being so innocently curious.

For the most part, the disciples were adults acting out of their broken, tainted, unyielded, sinful, unregenerate, selfish selves. Like me, they confused the way things ought to be with the way things are. As adults, our souls are worn, dirty, and distorted by life and religion. It’s the grabbing, lusting, arrogant tendency of the sinful soul who takes ownership of a confused pharisaical theology - expecting “perfection” out of the incorrigibly imperfect. Personally, it amazes me how much I can confuse religion and spirituality for honor and sacrifice. This behavior is not from the original or even regenerate type of dependent person that Jesus designed.

Jesus got to the reality of the ordeal quickly when he said to the disciples that becoming a child is best thing you can do. Just acknowledge my utter brokenness, accept that extremely judgmental side of you, and convert to childhood. Have faith like a child. Think about life, love, and the why’s and how’s of this world like a child. Be a recipient of everything, including the Kingdom of God (per Jesus)! Do not expect this world to be as you want. Learn to be free - but not independent – like a child. How hard is that to do though! How humbling!

First, where do I start? I think that innocently wondering about life, love, and why’s and how’s is a good place to start the process of becoming childlike. Here we are soft in this world all over again. It’s a good place to be – as we can learn to “do” just that - remain be-ing childlike with regard to wonder.

Taking on the position of the child will not only allow us to really wonder about this world and ourselves, but it will enable us to be open to the reality He created us to live with. We will enjoy the world more without holding it hostage to our model. We will free up people and this world. And we will see Him better as Paul states in Romans 1:20, “God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”

Overall, if wondering right, we will live from the inside out. From the true self before the filters, glasses, and worldviews are sucked on to us. Only by humbling of ourselves to be child-like can we be free to give love without condemning and free to sacrifice without religion. Free to be a broken person in a world full of broken people - accepting our broken selves and accepting all other broken people. Even accepting the world’s implosion without having an anxiety attack!

Concerning this world and our ridiculousness, Augustine sums it up this way, “No man ought to feel secure in this life. This whole of life is called an ordeal. It’s ordered so that the man who could be made better from having been worse may not also from having been better become worse. Our sole hope, our sole confidence, only assured promise, is your mercy.” (Confessions)

How this world needs Jesus.

How I need Jesus.

Jeremy David Livermore

The Unknown - Dolphins, Demons, and Halloween

Every year around Halloween I tend to notice massive spider webs covering people’s bushes, pumpkins, candy, and people telling ghost stories. Actually, I have heard some great stories told by very credible witnesses (people who fit the court’s criteria of being credible) that speak of the strangeness and scarin ess of the unseen world. I am thinking of 3 short examples: 1) A missionary to an Indian reservation had a witch doctor spin around in his front yard performing a ritualistic dance and chanting. He then suddenly turned into a deer and ran away. 2) A theology professor and a church member went to a house to cast out demons that were attacking a family who had recently began playing with an Ouija board. While everything was calm the Dad suddenly bent over backwards (as one would bend forwards) and began screaming that they were attacking him. He popped up and the professor put his hand on the man to pray and as he touched the Dad, the professor could not speak and complete darkness came on his eyes. His voice was shut down until he thought the phrase “In Jesus Christ name be gone.” Immediately the chaos ceased and the demons never came back. 3) A village in Africa had revival stirring as many were coming to believe in Jesus. One night several demons manifested in the form of fireballs and destroyed several homes with their fire…..Strange. Weird. Unknown.

When I consider these stories, I need to take a step back to realize how important are these stories and what do we do with them? Out of the many voids in the church today, or better, opportunities in the church today, I see the gaping ones being the a) The lack of emphasis on thinking, b) the lack of training and practice of evangelism, and c) the lack of engaging with the unknown. The most troubling of these 3 is the latter. The unknowns I am thinking of here are the Holy Spirit, the supernatural/spiritual reality, spiritual warfare, and the demonic or occult – all that the western mind and culture have not bothered to engage with much.

Here we have a few relatively unknown phenomena when considering the sum of church knowledge and practice over say the last several decades in the western church. These unknowns are those that most, if not all, evangelical churches seem to at best mention here and there in a sermon or teach about in a Sunday school class. Now, granted, I understand that some churches may be engaged with these unknowns more than others. But why is it that most of the church, a regenerating entity consisting of regenerate spirit souls seems to week after week, year after year, shield, ignore, or forget these “unknowns?”

I remember visiting many types, styles, and brands of church services over the past 10 years from Australia to Africa to Italy. The most striking feature I noticed was that in western, secular and church, communities alike there is a consistency in missing the non-physical, non-practical supernatural realms of existence. The result of which is a church that lacks belief in the power of the Holy Spirit and spiritual warfare with angels battling demons to help us poor human souls. In actuality these beliefs are dormant in the church and secular communities, which in this sense consistently merge into the day to day, here and now, and practical living.

But occasionally a Halloween springs upon us and we see costumes or we rent a scary movie and are quickly reminded of the unknown realm of something or another that has “badness” written all over it. Our “bad” shields go up and we stop engaging with the “bad” because the “bad” is unknown and foreign to us.

I liken this unknown bad realm to me swimming in the ocean here in southern California. From time to time I enjoy myself being moved about by the waves up and down here and there. Obviously, I expect a certain level of movement and momentum in an unknown direction. So I float about. Until all of the sudden a flock of big black monster demon dolphins swim by in the waves and scare me to death. It’s scary how fast they move. Thoughts of them pulling me down, drowning me, or eating me alive come to mind instantly. I immediately flounder hastily off to the shore to avoid any contact. There I was engaged with the bigness and power of the great Pacific Ocean (at least in standing water) until the “Homeland Security Unknown Level” quickly increased to the yellow “scared of the unknown” and then the red “beyond my control.”

However, the bad dolphins…ok let’s say good dolphins, and let’s say bad demons…the bad demons are not to remain in the “I’m scared of the unknown” category far too long. Why? Because that presupposition is unfounded on Scripture. Paul prepares us troops for battle in fighting the principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:10-12). Peter and James also talk about resisting the devil (1 Peter 5:8; James 4:7). Just like we are called to be knowledgeable and engage with the ministry of the Holy Spirit (praying for the sick to be healed, miraculous intervention in impossible circumstances, the conviction of hearts of the lost, the prophetic, speaking guided words of wisdom, tongues – depending on your Pentecostalism, etc.) so are we called to be knowledgeable and engaged with the bad (praying against the attacks and temptations of Satan, exorcising demons, speaking the name of Jesus Christ in the midst of darkness and depression, etc.) as regenerate souls combating the evil forces of the demonic kingdom with the light from the kingdom of heaven.

Perhaps it is not that we are “scared of the unknown” but it is that it is “beyond our control” because we lack knowledge of it…….Here we would agree with Sir Francis Bacon when he said that “knowledge is power.” Conversely, what we do not have knowledge of we cannot have power over. This is the point. Unknown things do not become known unless there is learning. Without learning about the unknown demonic realms we will have no power to resist it in temptation, no power to attack it and rescue people from it, and where the attacks are coming from will remain unknown.

Furthermore, we don’t want to engage with that which we cannot control. The unknown cannot be controlled. The Holy Spirit cannot be controlled. Thus, the Holy Spirit and His power usually moves about only in church services and lives where control is given up to him. I guess there is more to say on that some other time. Overall, when considering the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of demons and Satan, we seem powerless...

Now…This is the first step towards freedom and healing in recovery programs. My admission of powerlessness.

So where do I begin to even consider having power in this unknown realm? How can I start praying against the demons that continue to attack us and fight our angels? Well, there is much to say here, but more importantly one needs to learn for oneself how to fight by praying, seeking scripture, and seeking out believers (I recommend believers in other countries) who have had experiences fighting back. But I will say this, perspective in learning about spiritual realms is priority. Indisputably, the “bad” is not to be engaged with on an entertainment fun Ouija board level. C.S. Lewis advised, “There are 2 equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” (Screwtape Letters) For starters, I recommend Lewis’ Screwtape Letters - a book of fictitious letters written by a head demon to a lower demon in the ranks on how to oppress a particular human he is been assigned to.

While Halloween may seem silly, most just dress up pretending to be the Hamburgler, or an Amish Jew, or Arnold, further diluting the great traditions and real meaning behind our beloved Halloween holiday. Seriously, at its core Halloween represents the very dark “badness” that wants to destroy the church. This Halloween, as the demonic covers itself in cuteness, the church can easily forget the spiritual warfare that exists. We can forget how we can have dominion over it if we just learn how to. If we just have the courage to learn how to…

Didn’t FDR say it so well when he spoke of the unknown, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” I guess it’s time that I learn about dolphins.

Jeremy David Livermore, P.E.
Staff Apologist
Apologetics.com

Seeking Wrongly or Finding Rightly

The “bad” belief that modernism prescribes:
In his book More Ready Than You Realize, Brian McLaren describes a boxing in of God by the modernists & foundationalists who “filter and revise...the image of God.”[1] McLaren views the premodern notion of God as inferior to the modern, and the modern inferior to the postmodern. The modern conception limits and contains God who is far greater than what the scientific and logical analysis that modernism can provide. A better understanding of God is one that can stretch the imagination and “inspire it to new heights” where “our concept of God is expanding, deepening, and growing more glorious.”[2] We can develop this understanding by engaging with postmodern unbelievers about their conceptions of God as Peter experienced with Cornelius.
But, according to McLaren, a postmodern understanding is not just big step forward from modernism, it is a radical shift of worldview. This releases any God seeker to encounter a “wild and alive” God as seen in Jesus rather than an “out of the box” God understood through “wordy, windy, systematic explanations” of modern preachers and theologians. The theological and philosophical arguments laid out in the modern era to prove God are a “downright wicked, waste of time” because they perform science experiments on the beautiful life-changing substance of God and his word. This foundationalism, building a full-proof system of understanding reality on rational and truthful propositions, pushed aside beauty and goodness in exchange for truth and nothing but the truth. Overall, McLaren argues that beliefs are much more complex and dynamic than what modern foundationalism prescribes. Beliefs develop not so neatly and simply, they are more like webs that are being “plucked or stretched or even broken…and people are always seeking to mend tears and bolster sags and cover holes.”[3]
Unfortunately, because the only available version of Christianity is a modern one, McLaren resolves that we may have to conform to a religion that claims it embodies truth, goodness, and beauty, but the just opposite is conveyed by its modern subscribers. A seeker needs to see goodness and beauty in a relationship and accept truths of the faith as that relationship develops, rather than being forced to swallow heavy doctrine or just believe four laws and say a statement that guarantees with full certainty that one is saved. That is why, for McLaren, “belonging must precede believing.”[4]
The good belief that modernism discovered:
McLaren, a leader of the emerging church movement, attacks, misrepresents, and condemns modernism and foundationalism on false premises. Not only does he begin with pure ignorance of the content and nature of the work of the scholastics, moderns, and rationalists, but expresses to know the understanding of God in the minds of modern believers. He states, “Modern Christianity has (inadvertently, I think) tended to reduce God to a being containable by human concepts, propositions, or logic.”[5] This is not an accurate representation, summary, or historical analysis of anything the written or thought in the modern era. Works produced then (and now still) are truly the opposite and what McLaren himself seems to be advocating, an seeking-type understanding of God. Thinkers wrote out lengthy systematic accounts of theology and philosophy in an attempt to discover God and his nature. That is, the “Enlightenment project,” as McLaren phrases it, truly allowed some thinkers to mentally reach out into the supernatural and try to touch the supernatural nature of God as a worship type of experience. This was the spiritual seeking of some brilliant and pious minds. If McLaren faults them for their logical and rational journey to God, he would be contradicting his entire post-modern scheme. To the others who set out to prove God and satisfy their “dynamic” thoughts is the scope of the philosopher, theologian, and, yes, the postmodern. The entire purpose of any spiritual-religious experience, modern or postmodern, is to seek and find, not seek and get lost.
This seeking is not just built on rationalism, although some thinkers then were pure rationalists. The worldview of a modern thinker was developed by encountering the goodness, beauty, and truth of God himself, rather than from a well-meaning parishioner that they built a relationship with. It is important to note that while one could be rightly praised for seeking sincerely, it is ridiculous to praise those who sincerely seek not God and blindly seek that which is not the object of their own seeking. Modernism seems to allow the more open and free spiritual journey, one that is purely divine in direction and not vulnerable to the misinterpretations of many other similar seekers. This is a far cry from a “domesticated God who is owned by Christianity.”[6] On the contrary, modernism allows for compelling testimonies of how one seeks to find God, and maybe with use of his mental faculties, succeeds.
[1] McLaren, Brian. More Ready Than You Realize. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan) 2005, page 53.
[2] Ibid, page 53.
[3] Ibid, page 130.
[4] Ibid, page 85.
[5] Ibid, page 145. The parentheses are entirely his words - he thinks this result of Modernism was inadvertent.
[6] Ibid, page 145.

Theology as an Absolute Science

Theology is a science similar to geometry rather than geology because the method of investigation is based on the necessary and absolute essence of the object studied. Unlike the relative sciences which deal with the contingent, theology is a science whose object is known through a priori knowledge of certain logically deduced non-empirical truths. That is, the “object” under study is necessary and that which is known of “it” are concepts whose meanings are independent of a posteriori discoveries. Other sciences are “relative” by their very nature because the truths about them are not-necessary and are empirically determined, such that, depending on the quantity and quality of evidences, various conclusions can be drawn. Theology has neither of the following relativistic principles that the relative sciences maintain: experimental discoveries, relative sensual conclusions, and uncertainty of non-sense perceptible data.

Post-Modernity and the Fall of the “Modern Church”

The argument for the existence of the emerging church
According to Gibbs & Bolger, the current church structure and institution formed and developed into what it is now during the birth of the modern era and the Reformation. The style, principles, and practices of the modern Reformation church shaped primarily in response to modernism, the invention of the printing press, and exclusion of Catholic dogma of the Reformation churches. The church, at that time, sought to reject tradition in favor of accepting the word of God alone and faith for salvation alone (sola scriptura & sola fide) as means for becoming independent from Ecclesiastic tyranny. This protest (hence Protestantism) was never meant to be permanent, or at least shouldn’t have, but rather a reaction and revolution to exclusive righteousness and sacredness.
But the church adopted linear, rational, absolutist thinking that modernism prescribed to the church theologians. As a result, the both the Protestant and Catholic church, propelled by modernity, marginalized the sacred and the secular. Thus, in that time, the church and society both began to think dualistically, in that, each separated the “natural and supernatural, the public facts versus private values, body versus mind and spirit, faith versus reason.”[1]
This formed the church as we know it now, with just few minor secondary changes, such as the genre of the song being sung or the charismatic homiletics of the pastor. Our church today then, is at least 400 years old in its delivery of the message and the imitation of Jesus. Today’s culture is “postmodern” rather than modern, and “postmodern culture questions the legitimacy of these dualisms.” Gibbs and Bolger state that as “modernity began to crumble, the modern church shared its fate…and the church found itself defending its modern ethos.” The emerging church is necessary then to keep the church alive and fulfill the desires of postmodern culture “for holistic spirituality.”[2]
Response to Gibbs & Bolger
By making sweeping generalizations that are radically false, Gibbs and Bolger fallaciously construct the story of a stubborn irrelevant church whose middle age filter of reality leads to suicide. The emerging church is the hero that answers the culture’s crying call. But somehow, the church is secular and the culture is spiritual. This assessment should be completely rejected in light of sociological/historical facts, logic, and truth.
Precluding the modern era, at the least, cultures such as Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian, observed clear dualism of the aforementioned and a complete picture of universals and absolutes. This is an obvious truth, to which rejected would be in defiance of all the literature produced from Socrates up to the modern era! But on page 66, Gibbs and Bolger instead state, “Spirituality as a separate domain was unknown. With the birth of modernity in the West, the tie between religion and the rest of life was broken…Modernity was about the birth of secular space.” This is clearly false and the attempt to define the church as a variable in modernism’s formula is shows a lack of education on Gibbs and Bolger’s part.
Gibbs and Bolger use worship in chapter 4 to drive their point home, saying that “all of life must be sacred…All can be made holy. All can be given to God in worship. All modern dualisms can be overcome.”[3] This seems to mean that completely evil acts and places can be given to God in worship. But is this the worship that God accepts? John 4:24 prescribes that “his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” Although God will accept the sinner and not the sin, God is proactive in His call to conform to holiness and change occurs as a sinner receives His irresistible grace.
Finally, it is not coherent at all how Gibbs and Bolger make sense when they state that “secular music becomes holy and therefore the rest of their lives becomes holy as well.” But, how do you glorify God with something that may be contrary to His nature and ways? They further state that “a linear or text-based ecclesiology perpetuates secularity in the church and denies the church’s call to live incarnationally.”[4] What call are they referring to? Jesus taught to be in this world but not of this world. Paul did not mean accept sin when he said that he became all things to all men. Presenting to God our lives as we are in our culture specific context need not be falsifying to his nature or contrary to his ways, as the authors allow. This is not to say that God will not accept and redeem ourselves as we are, but he calls us to come out of our darkness and into his light.

[1] Gibbs, Eddie & Bolger. Ryan, Emerging Churches – Creating Christian Community in postmodern cultures. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic Publishing), 2005. Page 67.
[2] Ibid, page 88.
[3] Ibid, page 66.
[4] Ibid, page 71.

A review of Calvin's "On Predestination"

In this portion of the institutes, Calvin discusses predestination. He begins by framing the topic, setting boundaries on what we can know and what is of the secret things of God. If God chooses to withhold the understanding of his mysteries, we should not put ourselves at risk by questioning or being curious to those things. This is a doctrine of grace rather than wrath, because it shows God’s favor based on whom he elects. It is Scripturally based and should not be ignored or mistreated because it is difficult to comprehend.
Predestination is the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. God sees all things in time at once, not past, present, and future. Divine time is static and God has complete foreknowledge of events. Calvin acknowledges the divine choosing of the Israel to be the chosen race, not because they were the greatest people but because they were the least. This exemplifies the salvation of the gentile, which is far greater display of his grace because we are adopted into the divinely ordained chosen family God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation and destruction.
Advocates of foreknowledge argue that the basis of his choosing is not our works but his purposes and that he knows we will choose holiness. Calvin argues from Paul’s works that man has nothing in him that God would evaluate and man is completely indebt to his glory. The believers are the receivers of this special grace. It is known by God through his foreknowledge or prescience is not speculative but active. Jesus said he knows whom he has chosen just like God told Moses he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Judas is not among the elect, he is a devil. Augustine adds that the grace of God does not find but makes persons fit to be chosen. Some argue, the universality of the promise destroys the distinction of special grace. Calvin asks, why would God call those who would not come? God “illuminates” those who he chose. Many are called few are chosen. Reprobation is founded on the righteous will of God.
Election and effectual calling are founded on the free mercy of God. God’s calling is proved to be free and an infallible pledge of salvation. To obtain certainness of the council of God is absurd, like wanting to “fly above the clouds.” The elect can have certainty of the assurance of their calling and election despite the attacks of Satan. We must not attempt to penetrate to the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom, in order to learn what is decreed with regard to us at the judgment-seat. Jesus Christ is the anchor of our hope and the mirror at which we know our election; Calvin affirms Christ as the ultimate truth and fountain of life for our eternal life. Christ is the protector and guardian of our salvation, the shepherd of our souls. People seem to fall away from Christ, those that are unclear, may in fact not have a certain assurance, there is a holy fear required of the elect. Though many may come to church, one must have professed faith in Christ, for the Lord to accept. Judas held the office of disciple, but was a devil and was not one of the elect. Taking on those who advocate no certainty based on Scripture, Calvin argues for the certainty of the elect by appealing to comprehensive passages.
Calvin tackles the reprobate in the second part of the chapter. God blinds those who may have denied or wait to respond to Him. Some He denies the opportunity. Some ask, “Why would God blind the reprobate?” That God would raise up people to reveal him more and that God’s glory would be proclaimed.

Postmodernism meets Christianity: An Investigation on the Imbalance of Experience, Grace, and Truth in Postmodern Christianity

1) Introduction – Spiritual experiences are sought after by every human
a) In our time and culture, spiritual experiences are more rare
b) As a result, there is a struggle to have spiritual experiences, especially by Christians, in our culture
c) Our culture is postmodern
d) In postmodern cultures there is also a lack of balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences.
e) Experiences, including spiritual, drive and govern postmodern Christianity as they do a postmodern society.
f) Postmodernism and postmodern Christianity lead to a grace-only and experience-only lifestyle and worldview.
i) The postmodern Christian is frustrated with this lack of spiritual experiences and focuses this energy on experiential forms of Christianity.
ii) Because the postmodern Christian does not have an appropriate balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences, he struggles with alternative experiential overcompensating grace-truth ventures, as a substitute for the true spiritual experiences he actually is seeking.
(1) The formation of emerging churches is due to the postmodern Christian’s struggle to have spiritual experiences and his adopting of some form of postmodern Christianity.
g) An experience-only focus or a grace-only focus to Christianity will lead to heretical beliefs.
h) For sound Christianity, there must be a balance between seeking spiritual experiences, seeking grace, and understanding the truth that corresponds to reality.
i) Postmodernism and Postmodern Christianity ought to be rejected because they are unsound systems of thought that disregard knowing objective truth that corresponds with reality.
2) The Postmodern Christians growing frustrations
a) There is a growing frustration among postmodern Christians regarding the truth that modernism champions within the church
i) Modernism has brought on an over-emphasis in truth and dogma so there is a need to overcompensate and tone down truth.
ii) There is little to no room to ask questions or challenge,
(1) especially for the younger believers
(a) Postmodern Christians are mostly 30 and younger
(2) especially for the seeker
(3) especially for the newly saved
iii) Modern thought regarding certainty of truth is completely repulsive because
(1) it segregates those that claim they know
(2) no truth can be known with certainty
iv) there is need to overemphasize the spiritual journey and story because of the overemphasis and falsity on an individual salvation experience of modernism
(1) modernism sees salvation as an event
(2) modernism sees “winning people” to Christ
(3) modernism sees the gospel as simple, essential truths
v) there is a need to overemphasize the wonder and mystery of God because of the strict analysis and confinement of God in modernism’s strict philosophical theology.
(1) modernism sees God as rigid and controlling
(2) the plethora of catechisms, works of systematic theology, doctrines, etc…
vi) All the overemphasis and overcompensating of non-truth oriented views of the postmodern Christian results in an imbalance towards non-truthful beliefs.
b) There is a growing frustration among postmodern Christians regarding the non-graceful attitude that modern Christians possess.
i) There is a need to overcompensate for their misguided brothers’ and sisters’ religious uptight attitude.
(1) more emphasis on the poor and needy
(2) more emphasis on caring for those who seem to be society’s outcast
(3) more emphasis on the community rather than the individual
(4) results in over-emphasis on grace
ii) modernism produced this controlling and conquering attitude in Christians to society and the unbeliever
(1) the postmodern Christian actually is repulsed and has a non-graceful attitude to his brother and sister in Christ and a graceful attitude towards the unbeliever.
(2) Thus, the grace of the postmodern Christian is imbalanced in this direction.
iii) other non-postmodern trends that Modernism in the church has produced
c) There is a growing frustration among postmodern Christians regarding the complete lack of spiritual experiences one has.
i) Modernism drove out this openness of the manifestations and actualization of the spiritual experiences.
ii) Modernism focused on rational proofs.
iii) In the modern era, the Roman Catholic gatekeepers of knowledge were denounced in the reformation.
(1) the rise of Protestantism gave way to the word openly read and preached to laity.
(2) the new availability required structure, corrective theology, debates, and detailed systematic analysis of the truth.
(3) this resulted in an overly developed system and body of knowledge as the ultimate truth.
(4) spirituality took the back seat and did not develop since the Roman Catholic era.
(5) the emphasis on art was discontinued as worship
(6) certain catholic liturgical practices were discontinued
(7) symbolism of the Byzantines and Catholicism was denounced as idolatrous
(8) religion was confined to the mind,
(a) cannot hang rosary or crosses in physical space
(b) cannot express oneself artistically
(c) cannot have an emotional or spiritual posture
(d) cannot have conflicting views that don’t align with the truth.
iv) Modernism in the church has produced
(1) apologetics as a defense
(2) the Christian life as a belief system
(3) excessive focus on the individual
(4) purveyor of religious goods and services
v) Spirituality and awareness of the supernatural and divine were pushed into the privatized non-public state.
vi) Only the charismatics and Pentecostals were opened to it, but branded radicals and extremists by conservatives.
vii) Postmodern Christians hunger for these spiritual experiences but aren’t comfortable with the style and content of charismatics and Pentecostals because they are just modernists at heart with some added weirdness.
3) Values of the postmodern Christian that seem solid and good
a) There is a well-received drive for authenticity and genuine friendship.
i) To actually come broken and as we are to our church community for healing and change is needed in every church, protestant or catholic, evangelical or emerging.
ii) This emphasis is a great start to eliminate fakeness and hypocrisy of every Christians
b) The drive for community rather than individuality
c) The drive for new forms of worshipping God
d) The drive for stories and narratives to enter into our understanding when examining Biblical literature.
e) The 3 core and 6 related practices of Gibbs & Bolger’s analysis may have good and solid intentions to them but not all are to be accepted.
i) Identifying with the life of Jesus (core)
ii) Transforming secular space (core)
iii) Living as community (core)
iv) Welcoming the stranger
v) Serving with generosity
vi) Participating as producers
vii) Created as created being
viii) eading as a body
ix) Taking part in spiritual activities
f) There is a well-needed warning to not use language to control and oppress peoples.
g) There is a well-needed warning to not embrace scientism or reductionism as a worldview as the modern era prescribes.
4) Four approaches to evangelism in western cultures.


a) Power Evangelism
i) This approach is open to supernatural activity taking place to persuade the person to experience God’s divine love and changing of their life through the manifestations of the Holy Spirit as signs and wonders such as:
(1) Physical healing
(2) Mental healing
(3) Emotional healing
(4) Deliverance from enemy oppression
(a) Could be demon possession
(b) Or could be oppression resulting in the forms of the physical, mental, or emotional
(5) “Being Slain in the Spirit”
(6) Prophecy
(a) Words of knowledge
(b) Words of wisdom
(c) Words regarding the past
(d) Words for the future
b) Holy/Life Evangelism
i) This approach involves walking out the Christian faith to reflect the light of God’s love to the world by means of an attractive lifestyle.
(1) This approach tends to be very practical and natural.
(a) Giving food to the homeless
(b) Other acts of kindness
(2) One would not verbally express the gospel message, but rather lives righteously and lives a life that resembles Jesus’ life the most.
c) Straight up Evangelism
i) This approach involves verbally expressing the gospel message.
(1) This tends to be thought of as the biblical approach as we read about the gospel being “preached” and many convert.
(2) Here, one can use apologetics, Scripture, and any other means to reach the unbeliever in a loving and appropriate manner.
(3) This may vary from giant crusades where thousands of people “get saved” or 2 people on a college campus discussing the essential Christian doctrines that lead to salvation.
d) Spiritual story/journey Evangelism
i) This approach involves building a solid relationship with another that is authentic, transparent, and open to being real so that the other can have the spiritual experiences of God along their journey (in their story) without the Christian getting in the way.
(1) Here, one relates to the other person on the same level, treating another as equally valuable, loving and living life out together without any strings attached or ulterior motives (winning their soul).
(2) This approach emphasizes key aspects of Postmodernism and Christian Postmodernism.
(a) Allowing one to be open to interpret God as it seems to make sense to the person.
(b) Not imposing one’s own beliefs on the other.
(c) Not putting up a front of righteousness and being better.
(d) Not hiding behind religion or being fake.
5) Some comparisons of Modernism and Postmodernism
a) Nancy Murphy’s (influential philosopher on Emerging Church Leaders) view
i) Modernism
(1) Fundamentalist/conservative modernism
(a) knowledge: scriptural foundationalism
(b) language: propositionalism
(c) divine action: interventionalism
(d) relationship with science: commensurable
(2) Liberal modernism
(a) Knowledge: experiential foundationalism
(b) Language: expressivism
(c) Divine Action: immanentism
(d) Relationship with science: incommensurable
ii) Postmodern
(1) Knowledge: holistic, nonfoudationalist
(2) Language: much more than referential or expressive; we do things with it and in “ways of life”
(3) Science & Divine Action: not reductionistic, but holistic, causation is top down, not just bottom up; supervenience of higher levels upon lower ones.
b) Tony Jones’s view
i) Modernism vs. Postmodernism
(1) Rational vs. Experiential
(2) Scientific vs. Spiritual
(3) Unanimity vs. Pluralistic
(4) Exclusive vs. Relative
(5) Egocentric vs. Altruistic
(6) Individualistic vs. Communal
(7) Functional vs. Creative
(8) Industrial vs. Environmental
(9) Local vs. Global
(10) Compartmentalized vs. Holistic
(11) Relevant vs. Authentic
c) Scott Smith’s view
i) Modernism: Emphasized confidence in human reason, apart from divine revelation, could know universal truths in all subject matters.
ii) Postmodernism: emphasizes the fallibility of human reason, as well as its biases, and how it is all too often used to oppress people.
iii) Modernism: the inevitability of progress and flourishing for the human.
iv) Postmodernism: the decay and destruction occur when humans are in power and hold the keys to knowledge of the people.
v) Modernism: emphasized the objective truths that can apply to all people in every culture.
vi) Postmodernism: emphasizes pluralism and no imperialistic, oppressive “values” that can impose or disrupt another.
6) Understanding and Assessing Postmodernism
a) Postmodernism is difficult to define
i) Because most of those who are living in it don’t even know what it is
ii) Because even the academic community of scholars and thinkers have varying views of it
iii) Because it rejects the following
(1) Objective universal truths
(2) Objective rationality
(3) Authorial meaning in texts
(4) The existence of stable verbal meanings
(5) Universally valid linguistic definitions
(6) The possibility of accurate definitions
(7) A God’s eye view of things
(8) Non-biased views
(9) Beliefs that are not theory laden
iv) And because postmodernism embraces the following
(1) Religious pluralism: embrace everyone except those who claim exclusivity.
(2) All truth is relative.
(3) Perception is reality
(4) Some neo-Kantian postmodern’s embrace that an external reality exists but claim that we have no way of getting at it, so it is a useless notion, and can be forgot about.
b) Some brief characteristics of Postmodernism
i) It is a historical and chronological notion and is a philosophical ideology
(1) Historically, it is a period of thought following and reacting to modernism
(a) It needs to be mentioned here that certain thoughts of Hume, Descartes, and Kant are better positioned in the postmodern era.
(b) Cultural influences of modernity
(i) the desire to control and conquer
(ii) the age of the machine
(iii) the age of analysis
(iv) quest for certainty and totalizing knowledge
(v) a critical age
(vi) nation-states
(vii) emphasis on the individual
(viii) Protestantism
(ix) widespread consumerism
(2) Chronologically, it began and in some sense replaced modernism
(3) Philosophically, it reinterprets what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge
(a) It represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self, and other notions.
(b) It holds to an anti-realist rejection of the notions metaphysical realism:
(i) the existence of a theory-independent or language independent reality
(ii) there is one way the world really is
(iii) the basic laws of logic apply to reality
1. for the postmodern, logic is a Western construction and are in know way taken to be universally valid laws of reality itself.
c) The “linguistic turn” of the 20th century
i) Before this turn, based on the philosophy of Kant and many others, we were stuck behind our thoughts or impressions and cannot know reality.
ii) Derrida, Kuhn, Foucault, Lyotard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Russell, and others advocated that we are stuck inside of language and cannot know reality.
iii) We cannot escape from its influences to know an objective reality, although it does exist.
(1) Language and the world are “internally related”
(a) There is no thinking in this world that occurs outside of language.
(i) One cannot think without it.
(b) Language actually enters reality and makes reality what it is.
(c) We construct our world by the use of our language
(i) language is autonomous
(ii) the construction of language is a product of human activity
(iii) adoption of grammatical rules is due to convention not due to some-higher level rules
(d) There is a real world but there is no direct experience of it.
(i) No knowledge by direct acquaintance; i.e., no direct simple seeing
(ii) All seeing is interpretative seeing
(iii) The every experience of the things themselves is a matter of interpretation
(2) Language is the grid or filter that stands between us and objective reality.
(3) There is no essence or nature to language. There are just many languages.
(4) We cannot use language to get outside of language.
(5) We cannot use language to define the limits of language.
(a) There is no single fundamental use of language.
(i) Assertive
(ii) Interrogative
(iii) Metaphorical
(iv) Poetic
(b) A word does not have a unique essential meaning that can be derived from logical analysis.
(i) i.e., overlapping, loosely structured similarities in the use of a word compromise its meaning.
d) Meaning and value is primarily a behavioral matter in a linguistically formed community
i) We make our own social world by the use of language.
(1) Each community constructs their world
(a) “Knowledge is a construction of one’s social & linguistic structures, not a justified, truthful representation of reality by one’s mental states”
(b) The knowledge attained by a professional organization, scientists, or research institution is a construction that represents the social & linguistic structures of that group, and do not necessarily apply to any other group.
(2) Our only understanding of the real world is from how we talk about it.
(3) There are as many worlds as there are communities.
ii) Deconstructionism
(1) In a sense first developed by Jacques Derrida
(a) Key to Deconstructionism is that everything is interpretation
(i) Every experience & impression of reality is interpretation
(b) Because we work within language, we cannot escape its pervasive influences to know an objective reality independent of us.
(2) We cannot get at or know the intention of an author when he or she wrote a text
(a) There is know fixed or inherent meaning in any text.
(b) There are no identities
(c) Meanings are subjected to the interpretation of the reader who brings certain things to the text.
(d) Our interpretations reveal more about us than any intended meaning of the author
(i) It reveals our biases, power interests, privileged points of view
(e) This is the “death of the author”
(i) He is in no privileged position to interpret his own work.
(3) We ought to question everything & be skeptical about people’s views
(a) What motivates people is a quest for power.
(b) By deconstructing modern thought we can unmask the modern quest for certainty and truth
(c) Unmasking the will to power and totalizing control
(4) Other attempts at a definition:
(a) Similarly, in the context of religious studies Paul Ricoeur (1983) defined deconstruction as a way of uncovering the questions behind the answers of a text or tradition (Klein 1995).
(b) "[Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics.
(c) Whenever deconstruction finds a nutshell -- a secure axiom or a pithy maxim -- the very idea is to crack it open and disturb this tranquility.
iii) The rejection of dichotomous thinking
(1) dichotomous thinking occurs when someone divides stuff into 2 groups and then prefers one group over the other
(a) e.g.: real/unreal; good/bad; beautiful/ugly; rational/irrational; right/wrong; virtue/vice; true false
(b) the first member of each group is to be preferred.
(2) divisions and preferences are social constructions and may vary accordingly.
iv) Some implications of postmodernism on the Christian.
(1) Christians who have adopted postmodernism have gathered and formed various diverging communities into what is now known as the emerging church (The postmodern Christian’s Church).
(2) Some key leaders of the emerging church
(a) Tony Jones
(b) Brian McLaren
(c) Dan Kimball
(d) Doug Pagitt
(e) Todd Hunter
(f) Dieter Zander
(g) Barry Taylor
(h) Mark Scandrette
(i) Spencer Burke
(j) Eddie Gibbs
(k) Ryan K. Bolger
(l) Paul Roberts (U.K.)
(3) Some postmodern Christian philosophers
(a) Nancy Murphy
(b) Stanley J. Grenz
(c) John R. Franke
(d) Stanley Hauerwas
(e) Brad Kallenberg
(4) The postmodern Christian’s view
(a) On Compassion
(i) They have developed a concern for the postmodern person.
(ii) They have learned the language
(iii) They have great compassion
(iv) They have a great heart for world missions & cross-cultural ties.
1. Emerging Christians are effective with their use of stories.
(b) On Morality
(i) The moral life is not just making the right decision
(ii) Not or choosing that which produces the most good,
(iii) It is about vision, seeing rightly and thus act appropriately.
(iv) This vision requires stories
1. stories help us to connect with the unknowns of the world
(v) This vision requires learning the ways of a particular community
1. in this case the community is the church
2. learning ways means to perceive the world how that community perceives it, i.e., seeing it through their vision
(c) On Language
(i) In order to see the world, we must learn the language of a particular community.
(ii) One language is just one perspective on the world
(iii) Nobody or no culture has the only true and right perspective
1. Christians have learned the language of the church.
2. Christians have adopted the “story” of the Bible
a. Just as a community describes their world through their language so they can see it, Christians can describe the world with the language of the Bible so that they can see it.
b. Our story should reflect the story of Jesus.
c. It is our community standard.
(iv) “we do not come to know the world by perceiving it (direct acquaintance), but we come to know the world as we learn to use our language.”
(v) “Inside language”
1. Being inside language does not mean that language is a wall between us and the world.
2. It means that the effects of language are so deep, that we cannot experience anything or think about anything without its alterations.
a. We cannot take off our spectacles.
b. We cannot have direct acquaintance knowledge of the world.
c. Everything is an interpretation.
3. We cannot escape from language and its pervasive influences to
a. see reality rightly
b. know reality rightly
c. live rightly
(vi) We “make” our worlds by how we talk. “Language does not represent reality, it constitutes reality.”
1. We use the rules of grammar and certain phrases
2. We say things like
a. Repenting
b. Forgiving
c. Witnessing
3. Using these certain words doesn’t just describe our world but it shapes and makes our worlds.
4. If we aren’t using our language accurately, our community corrects us.
5. My identity is not my soul, but is my story which my character lives out.
(d) On Witnessing
(i) Witnessing is adopting an embodied apologetic
(ii) we can live out the gospel story and show its truth within our community
(iii) we encourage nonbelievers to “come and see” the truth of our story by “trying on” and by learning how Christians talk and live one can see the truth of our faith, to which cannot be seen from the outside.
(iv) Postmodern Christian’s reject the traditional approach because…
1. Traditional evangelical apologetics and witnessing are about proving one’s understanding of reality is the correct one.
2. Giving arguments and approaching witnessing like this presupposes that one has escaped language.
3. Foundationalism is dead.
(v) So, to some postmodern Christians the gospel story is in fact the true one, but we cannot know it or prove it.
(e) On the Christian life
(i) Without being able to know objective reality we can learn to see the world rightly by cultivating the skill of the Christian life.
(ii) the more we learn the language and behavior of the Christian community, the more we can see the truthfulness of the Christian story.
(iii) this is the training within the Christian story
(f) On Salvation
(i) Salvation is not accepting 4 spiritual laws and understanding objective reality regarding religion.
(ii) It is a process of being engrafted into the practices of the Christian community.
(g) On Modernism
(i) For the postmodern Christian, all of this is not relativism
(ii) The charge of relativism is just enlightenment fiction.
(iii) That would presuppose that one can have knowledge of objective reality.
(iv) Which is one claim of one particular “modern era” type of community of the in western world.
(h) On Reality
(i) There is no transcultural intellectual vantage point only interpretative grids, but we can have 3 hooks onto reality…
(ii) we can know that the universe came along without us knowing it or having language about it, but we have to get rid of the need for extending the linguistically formed world we live in to the rest of creation.
(iii) After Jesus returns we can know everything about reality.
(iv) Even though we can never get outside of language, the Holy Spirit can intervene and give us objective truth through the language of our community.
(5) Some views of Brian McLaren
(a) In his book More Ready Than You Realize, Brian McLaren describes a boxing in of God by the modernists & foundationalists who “filter and revise...the image of God.”
(i) McLaren views the premodern notion of God as inferior to the modern, and the modern inferior to the postmodern.
(ii) The modern conception limits and contains God who is far greater than what the scientific and logical analysis that modernism can provide.
(iii) A better understanding of God is one that can stretch the imagination and “inspire it to new heights” where “our concept of God is expanding, deepening, and growing more glorious.”
(iv) We can develop this understanding by engaging with postmodern unbelievers about their conceptions of God as Peter experienced with Cornelius.
(b) But, according to McLaren, a postmodern understanding is not just big step forward from modernism, it is a radical shift of worldview.
(i) This releases any God seeker to encounter a “wild and alive” God as seen in Jesus rather than an “out of the box” God understood through “wordy, windy, systematic explanations” of modern preachers and theologians.
(ii) The theological and philosophical arguments laid out in the modern era to prove God are a “downright wicked, waste of time” because they perform science experiments on the beautiful life-changing substance of God and his word.
(iii) This foundationalism, building a full-proof system of understanding reality on rational and truthful propositions, pushed aside beauty and goodness in exchange for truth and nothing but the truth.
(c) Overall, McLaren argues that beliefs are much more complex and dynamic than what modern foundationalism prescribes.
(i) Beliefs develop not so neatly and simply, they are more like webs that are being “plucked or stretched or even broken…and people are always seeking to mend tears and bolster sags and cover holes.”
(ii) Unfortunately, because the only available version of Christianity is a modern one, McLaren resolves that we may have to conform to a religion that claims it embodies truth, goodness, and beauty, but the just opposite is conveyed by its modern subscribers.
(iii) A seeker needs to see goodness and beauty in a relationship and accept truths of the faith as that relationship develops, rather than being forced to swallow heavy doctrine or just believe four laws and say a statement that guarantees with full certainty that one is saved.
(iv) That is why, for McLaren, “belonging must precede believing.”
(6) Some views of Eddie Gibbs & Ryan K. Bolger
(a) According to Gibbs & Bolger, the current church structure and institution formed and developed into what it is now during the birth of the modern era and the Reformation.
(i) The style, principles, and practices of the modern Reformation church shaped primarily in response to modernism, the invention of the printing press, and exclusion of Catholic dogma of the Reformation churches.
(ii) The church, at that time, sought to reject tradition in favor of accepting the word of God alone and faith for salvation alone (sola scriptura & sola fide) as means for becoming independent from Ecclesiastic tyranny.
(iii) This protest (hence Protestantism) was never meant to be permanent, or at least shouldn’t have, but rather a reaction and revolution to exclusive righteousness and sacredness.
(b) But the church adopted linear, rational, absolutist thinking that modernism prescribed to the church theologians.
(i) As a result, the both the Protestant and Catholic church, propelled by modernity, marginalized the sacred and the secular.
(ii) Thus, in that time, the church and society both began to think dualistically, in that, each separated the “natural and supernatural, the public facts versus private values, body versus mind and spirit, faith versus reason.”
(iii) This formed the church as we know it now, with just few minor secondary changes, such as the genre of the song being sung or the charismatic homiletics of the pastor.
(c) Our church today then, is at least 400 years old in its delivery of the message and the imitation of Jesus.
(i) Today’s culture is “postmodern” rather than modern, and “postmodern culture questions the legitimacy of these dualisms.”
(ii) Gibbs and Bolger state that as “modernity began to crumble, the modern church shared its fate…and the church found itself defending its modern ethos.”
(iii) The emerging church is necessary then to keep the church alive and fulfill the desires of postmodern culture “for holistic spirituality.”
(7) Some other quotes & thoughts from some postmodern Christians
(a) “Propositional truth is out and mysticism is in. People are not necessarily put off by a religion that does not ‘make sense’ – they are more concerned with whether a religion can bring them into contact with God.”
(b) “the beauty of the spirit controlling the text is that it can and indeed have different meanings in different times… and that the Spirit can use our own experiences and viewpoints to enlighten us to the meaning of the Word.”
(c) “Christianity will be true merely because that is how we talk as Christians.”
(d) For the postmodern Christian, “Even though we say that Jesus is the truth, there is still no way in history to prove it as such.”
(e) Foundationalism is against biblical teaching because it prevents faith, rejects the sinfulness of our intelligence, and grasping an infinite God is not only impossible but is dishonorable.
7) Evaluating Postmodernism and Postmodern Christianity
a) The rejection of Foundationalism by postmodernists seems to be mistaken.
i) No philosopher today thinks that we need to have absolute “bombproof certainty” as McLaren and Descartes thought they needed.
ii) Foundationalism is not dead and is not about attaining Cartesian certainty.
iii) Regarding knowledge and skepticism…
(1) We do not need to buy into the skeptics line of reasoning as Descartes did when he developed what we now call foundationalism.
(2) Descartes thought that the base foundation for which all beliefs can be developed must consist of indubitable beliefs. This is called Cartesian Foundationalism.
iv) Many if not most philosophers today are moderate foundationalists.
(1) This implies that there are other forms of foundationalism that are more appealing than Cartesian foundationalism.
v) Moderate Foundationalism ought not to be rejected.
(1) I am entitled to know things even without knowing them 100%. I.e., knowledge does not mean that I could not be mistaken.
(2) The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show why I cant know what I know. Defeating my view than, requires more than asking the question “Is it just possible that I could be mistaken.” I do not need to feel like I have to justify my view nor refute the skeptic.
(3) Full 100% certainty is not necessary for knowledge.
(4) Knowledge is justified true belief.
(a) Person S, knows a proposition, Y, if and only if: Y is true, S believes Y, and Y is justified for S.
(b) Furthermore, 1 & 3 are taken to be both necessary and sufficient conditions for “S knows Y.”
(c) Beliefs can have degrees of justification.
(i) Burden of Persuasion
1. This is the level of proof required for one to justify his claim.
2. P * G = B: Probability * Gravity = Burden of Persuasion
a. Example: Bomb in the cafeteria
b. Low probability * high gravity = maybe we should leave
c. Example: Hell
d. Say…10% to 25% Probability * very high gravity = one may want to commit to investigation.
(ii) The various levels of justification/certainty of a belief can be thought of as following:
1. 0%-10%- Complete skepticism
a. Absolutely unable to believe
2. 10%-25% - Reasonable suspicion
a. Cops can frisk you
3. 25%-50.0% – Probable cause
a. Warrant out for my arrest
4. 50.1%-75% - Preponderance of the Evidence
a. Civil Cases-Means more probable than not
5. 75%-90% - Clear and Convincing Evidence
a. Special Legal Circumstances
6. 90%-99.9% - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
a. Criminal Law Standard
7. 100.0% - Beyond all doubt absolute
a. Absolutely cannot deny, 100% certainty
(iii) Or the various levels of justification/certainty of a belief can be thought of as following:
1. Certain: 6
2. Obvious: 5
3. Evident: 4
4. Beyond reasonable doubt: 3
5. Epistemically in the clear: 2
6. Probable: 1
7. Counterbalanced: 0
a. This means that the evidence for and against the proposition offset each other.
8. Probably false: -1
9. In the clear to disbelieve: -2
10. Reasonable to disbelieve: -3
11. Evidently false: -4
12. Obviously false: -5
13. Certainly false: -6
(iv) I can have a belief regarding something that has negative epistemic status.
1. Even though it is still a belief, unjustified beliefs do not count as knowledge.
(d) Beliefs can be true or false.
(i) A belief is true if it corresponds to reality.
1. The proposition, “The planet earth is more of a spherical shape rather than a square shape.” is true if and only if earth does in fact resemble more of a sphere than a square.
(ii) A belief is false if it does not correspond to reality.
1. The proposition, “The planet earth is more of a square shape rather than a spherical shape.” is false if and only if earth does in fact resemble more of a sphere than a square.
(5) The issue is of access to objective reality.
(a) If we do actually have access to the real world and can know things as they are in themselves, than moderate foundationalism ought not to be rejected.
(b) It seems that we do have direct awareness that the postmodernists reject.
(c) Thus, moderate foundationalism ought not to be rejected.
b) The postmodern view, that because culture defines reality to the individual worldviews are shaped, seems to be a stretch from common sense.
i) Postmodernism teaches culture presses any individual, Christian or not, to align their worldview with the predominant one.
(1) Exposure to media, people, and ideas of the culture will attempt to cause this.
(2) But, how does one, who was developed as a “modern” child, and as an adult verifies and confirms his non-postmodern worldview, survive and thrive when his view differs and never conforms?
(3) Under postmodernism, happiness and flourishing is self-satisfying, which can only be obtained by embracing the predominant understanding of reality.
(4) Without this conformance one will always be swimming upstream, against the flow, denying the self.
(5) Anxiety, depression, and doubt will come to the striving individual until he or she accepts the media, people, and ideas of the culture. That is, until one stops denying the self to please the self.
ii) So according to postmodernism, understanding reality today, like any other day in history, involves perceiving the internal and external through the presuppositions one holds.
(1) One cannot escape the lens he or she uses to perceive.
(2) Thus, the individual can only experience a filtered image and not know reality entirely. “The postmodernists claim we have these presuppositions to start with.
(3) That is, we have no direct contact with reality, because we see reality through something, our language, ethnicity, culture.
(4) Thus, we see the world through glasses, through our presuppositions, through ‘seeing as’ rather than ‘seeing that.’”
(5) This line of thought comes from the rationalist philosophy of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume something that actually developed during the modern era and ought to be rejected.
(6) This worldview is misguided in light of the fact that I have direct awareness of reality and can know it in its entirety.
(7) Common sense realism seems to be far more easy to accept in light of the fact that I can see the object for what it is.
c) Other reasons why postmodernism and postmodern Christianity seem to difficult to adopt.
i) A severe implications of postmodernism is that God exists relative to Christians and does not exist relative to atheists. This is not a very useful position for maintaining or advocating one’s faith.
ii) With only local narratives and without meta-narratives or worldviews Christianity is just as valid a Buddhism, Islamic, or the naturalists perspective as reality.
iii) Postmoderns misinterpret and do not describe Modernism accurately
(1) Some of the views that they say that modernism brought about have been around for centuries before.
(2) Some of the views that modernism brought about do not have the severely damaging implications on our society and our Christian faith that they describe.
(3) Postmoderns do not discuss that the other major philosophical development of the Enlightenment or Modern era project was empiricism.
(a) McLaren characterizes that period as only giving birth to Rationalism.
(i) Rationalism: Knowledge is from reason alone.
1. Modern Rationalists: Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Malebranche, & Pascal
(ii) Empiricism: All knowledge is forthcoming from sense experiences.
1. Modern Empiricists: Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Berkeley, & Hume
(b) Empiricism is an idea that roots and shapes postmodernism, so even if McLaren and Jones do characterize and define the modern era and its effects appropriately, which they do not do, they ought not be so hasty to throw out modernism, which they do in fact do, because most of the ideology of postmodernism is taken from some key works produced during the modern era, namely the empiricists mentioned above.
(4) There are plenty of other ways in which the issues that postmoderns and postmoderns Christians bring can be resolved without adopting postmodernism.
(5) Overall, postmoderns and postmodern Christians misrepresent the modern era and mis-prescribe the solution.
iv) The energy postmodern Christian uses in struggle to have spiritual experiences can be redirected to the more efficient venture of pursuing wholeness in Christ.
v) Postmodern Christians may have great intentions but intentions and sincerity aren’t enough.
vi) Regarding God
(1) Christians make (construct) God
(2) Christians cannot know God as He is if we are on the inside of language.
(3) Christians construct God by how we talk. We make him into what He is-for us.
(4) This is absurd and turns Christians into idolators because we would be worshipping a god that’s different than the real God.
(5) Or if postmodernism is an actually adopted, this would contradict the “grammer” of our own language, the Bible, and cannot hope to live what the Bible teaches.
8) Rejecting the main points of postmodernism and the main points of Christian postmodernism
a) Rejecting the claim that we cannot know objective reality because of our bias.
i) Postmoderns incorrectly state that Experience affects doctrine & doctrine affects experience.
ii) This is just not true if sound doctrine corresponds with reality. I.e., if one holds to a objective realist view, than one’s private experiences of objective reality would not change or alter reality – Reality simply is what it is.
iii) Psychological objectivity
(1) It is possible to be psychologically objective on issues one is not interested in or hasn’t thought about.
(2) Most people are not psychologically objective on issues they have thought about deeply.
(3) The lack of psychological objectivity does not imply a lack of rationally objectivity.
iv) Rational Objectivity
(1) When one discerns and holds to the good reasons for believing something rather than discerns and holds to a belief based on bad reasons.
v) One’s bias does not eliminate the person’s ability to assess the reasons for something
(1) Postmodernism teaches that bias makes it impossible to have rational objectivity.
(2) According to postmodernism, if one could have objective rationality than every teacher, scientist, and educated person, or anyone that thinks objectively, could not teach on a view that they actually believed in.
(3) Rational objectivity is possible in defending the truth claims of Christianity without having a bias to them.
b) Rejecting the self-refuting philosophy.
i) In a postmodern culture anyone’s version of religion is tolerated except those versions, those worldviews, that do not tolerate another’s or claim to have the absolute objective truth.
(1) But this would imply that under postmodernism, postmodernism would reject itself because it rejects those views that aren’t all inclusive.
(2) While this is obviously a self-refuting contradiction, postmodernism is still the dominant worldview.
(3) Postmodernism makes superiority claims about language, literary texts, a dichotomy of modernism & postmodernism, morality, values.
(4) All of these claims are self-refuting because they claim that there is no objective vantage point and all claims on reality are equally valid.
(5) If two claims regarding the same thing are contradictory both claims cannot be right. One must be wrong. This presupposes that an objective reality actually exists, which some postmoderns do not hold to.
ii) First counter: Postmoderns counter that it is self-refuting as they claim when they say that there is no objective truth, they mean that there is no objective truth where there are no propositions, that propositions are elements of human language which are social constructions.
(1) This response is inadequate because there are certain objective truths that exist independent of an utterance or thought proposition about them.
(2) E.g., mathematical truths
iii) Second counter: the postmodern denies that his view is actually true or rational.
(1) This response is also inadequate because…
(a) They actually do make assertions as true and rational, even if they claim that they do not.
(b) They do not make any alternative notions of rationality or truth.
iv) Third Counter: the postmodern may say he is just writing for how his community has made or constructed their own world.
(1) This response is inadequate because no one outside their world would care about their own little world, unless they are claiming to know something about how the world actually is outside their world. But if that is true, than they are really claiming that they know the truth about reality and got outside their own language barrier. But this would be a contradiction to their own view which advocates that no one has that privileged view.
c) Rejecting their view on that meaning lies in the interpretation of the reader or community rather than the intent of the author.
i) There is a fundamental dependency of our knowledge of proper term use on the first-person perspective, and not that of the social group.
(1) Prior to referring to a specific dog, I am in need of knowing what constitutes a dog. I cannot know if Fito is a dog unless I know what a dog out to look like, sound like, behave like, etc…
(2) If I call the cat the dog, than I am misusing the term dog. I myself must know and can only what a dog is by having access to the dog itself.
ii) In order for language to develop, one must have direct awareness of objective reality.
(1) Social agreements, according to the postmodern, is how language is used. But how do those agreements form in the first place?
(2) Consider a group of individuals that never uttered a word met in the forest for the first time. How would they know how to begin communicate with each other but find common ground in the elements around or what they each have similar experiences with like eating, walking, hunting, etc.
(3) This pre-linguistic state would be a state where they know things apart from language. “This conclusion, therefore, undermines their core assertion that we are inside language and cannot escape to know objective reality.”
iii) This brings us back to an original common sense based first-person perspective as the best solution for understanding meaning.
d) Overall, postmodernism ought to be rejected.
i) While it may rightly warn us against the abuses of power and the need to reject scientism and other modern era worldviews, it primarily advocates doctrines that are completely anti-Christian.
ii) Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to simply remain neutral to postmodernism because postmodernism’s detrimental notions far outweigh its few positive ones. One can embrace certain positive notions of postmodernism, that have been around well before the modern era, without embracing postmodernism.
e) Rejecting postmodern Christianity as understood by Brian McLaren & Tony Jones
i) McLaren, a leader of the emerging church movement, attacks, misrepresents, and condemns modernism and foundationalism on false premises.
(1) Not only does he begin with pure ignorance of the content and nature of the work of the scholastics, moderns, and rationalists, but expresses to know the understanding of God in the minds of modern believers.
(2) He states, “Modern Christianity has (inadvertently, I think) tended to reduce God to a being containable by human concepts, propositions, or logic.”
(3) This is not an accurate representation, summary, or historical analysis of anything the written or thought in the modern era.
(4) Works produced then (and now still) are truly the opposite and what McLaren himself seems to be advocating, an seeking-type understanding of God.
(5) Thinkers wrote out lengthy systematic accounts of theology and philosophy in an attempt to discover God and his nature.
(6) That is, the “Enlightenment project,” as McLaren phrases it, truly allowed some thinkers to mentally reach out into the supernatural and try to touch the supernatural nature of God as a worship type of experience.
(7) This was the spiritual seeking of some brilliant and pious minds.
(a) If McLaren faults them for their logical and rational journey to God, he would be contradicting his entire post-modern scheme.
(8) To the others who set out to prove God and satisfy their “dynamic” thoughts is the scope of the philosopher, theologian, and, yes, the postmodern. The entire purpose of any spiritual-religious experience, modern or postmodern, is to seek and find, not seek and get lost.
ii) This seeking is not just built on rationalism, although some thinkers then were pure rationalists.
(1) The worldview of a modern thinker was developed by encountering the goodness, beauty, and truth of God himself, rather than from a well-meaning parishioner that they built a relationship with.
(2) It is important to note that while one could be rightly praised for seeking sincerely, it is ridiculous to praise those who sincerely seek not God and blindly seek that which is not the object of their own seeking.
(3) Modernism seems to allow the more open and free spiritual journey, one that is purely divine in direction and not vulnerable to the misinterpretations of many other similar seekers.
(4) This is a far cry from a “domesticated God who is owned by Christianity.”
(5) On the contrary, modernism allows for compelling testimonies of how one seeks to find God, and maybe with use of his mental faculties, succeeds.
f) Rejecting postmodern Christianity as understood by Eddie Bolger & Ryan K. Bolger
i) By making sweeping generalizations that are radically false, Gibbs and Bolger fallaciously construct the story of a stubborn irrelevant church whose middle age filter of reality leads to suicide.
(1) The emerging church is the hero that answers the culture’s crying call. But somehow, the church is secular and the culture is spiritual.
(2) This assessment should be completely rejected in light of sociological/historical facts, logic, and truth.
ii) Precluding the modern era, at the least, cultures such as Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian, observed clear dualism of the aforementioned and a complete picture of universals and absolutes.
(1) This is an obvious truth, to which rejected would be in defiance of all the literature produced from Socrates up to the modern era!
(2) But on page 66, Gibbs and Bolger instead state, “Spirituality as a separate domain was unknown. With the birth of modernity in the West, the tie between religion and the rest of life was broken…Modernity was about the birth of secular space.”
(3) This is clearly false and the attempt to define the church as a variable in modernism’s formula is shows a lack of education on Gibbs and Bolger’s part.
iii) Gibbs and Bolger use worship in chapter 4 to drive their point home, saying that “all of life must be sacred…All can be made holy. All can be given to God in worship. All modern dualisms can be overcome.”
(1) This seems to mean that completely evil acts and places can be given to God in worship. But is this the worship that God accepts? John 4:24 prescribes that “his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
(2) Although God will accept the sinner and not the sin, God is proactive in His call to conform to holiness and change occurs as a sinner receives His irresistible grace.
iv) Finally, it is not coherent at all how Gibbs and Bolger make sense when they state that “secular music becomes holy and therefore the rest of their lives becomes holy as well.”
(1) But, how do you glorify God with something that may be contrary to His nature and ways?
(2) They further state that “a linear or text-based ecclesiology perpetuates secularity in the church and denies the church’s call to live incarnationally.”
(3) What call are they referring to? Jesus taught to be in this world but not of this world.
(4) Paul did not mean accept sin when he said that he became all things to all men.
(5) Presenting to God our lives as we are in our culture specific context need not be falsifying to his nature or contrary to his ways, as the authors allow.
(6) This is not to say that God will not accept and redeem ourselves as we are, but he calls us to come out of our darkness and into his light.
g) Rejecting postmodernism and postmodern Christianity because it holds to an inappropriate balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences.
i) Spiritual experiences are sought after by every human
ii) In our time and culture, spiritual experiences are more rare
iii) As a result, there is a struggle to have spiritual experiences, especially by Christians, in our culture
iv) Our culture is postmodern
v) In postmodern cultures there is also a lack of balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences.
vi) Experiences, including spiritual, drive and govern postmodern Christianity as they do a postmodern society.
vii) Postmodernism and postmodern Christianity lead to a grace-only and experience-only lifestyle and worldview.
(1) The postmodern Christian is frustrated with this lack of spiritual experiences and focuses this energy on experiential forms of Christianity.
(2) Because the postmodern Christian does not have an appropriate balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences, he struggles with alternative experiential overcompensating grace-truth ventures, as a substitute for the true spiritual experiences he actually is seeking.
(a) The formation of emerging churches is due to the postmodern Christian’s struggle to have spiritual experiences and his adopting of some form of postmodern Christianity.
viii) An experience-only focus or a grace-only focus to Christianity will lead to heretical beliefs.
ix) For sound Christianity, there must be a balance between seeking spiritual experiences, seeking grace, and understanding the truth that corresponds to reality.
x) Postmodernism and Postmodern Christianity ought to be rejected because they are unsound systems of thought that disregard knowing objective truth that corresponds with reality.
9) Recommendations on living in a Postmodernism culture
a) Keep to a transcendent worldview
i) One can see things in light of our worldview, not through our worldview.
ii) As philosopher J.P Moreland notes, “Our worldview is a set of habits that form and shape the way we see the world.
iii) We constantly make a distinction between the foreground and the background.
(1) Our worldview informs us what to pay attention to and not to pay attention to.
(2) Our set of values help us choose what we pay attention to and not.
(3) Our values cause us to notice in the foreground things that which we value.”
iv) Here, one’s worldview is grounded in values, or important objective truths that are beyond the temporal and cultural, transcendent values.
(1) This would presuppose that, one has direct awareness of reality, that is, one has direct experience of the natural and supernatural.
(2) The most secular worldviews, even some religious ones, evolve and adapt as time passes and cultures transition.
(3) However, a transcendent worldview is a belief system that endures through any culture and any time without modification of values only their application.
(4) This transcendent worldview does not prescribe just going with the flow and not struggling with conflicting worldviews.
(5) It allows one to experience the world free from skepticism and trust our senses and reasoning. As such, one can transcend, reach beyond, the fullness of one’s own culture and experience a reality that holds all truth, knowable truth.
b) Keep to a passion for knowing reality
i) The worldview that most accurately corresponds to reality ought to be adopted.
ii) These are “the moral and intellectual duties of any thinking human, first, to believe as many truths as possible before we die, and second, to refuse to believe as many falsehoods as possible before we die.”
iii) One would hope that his beliefs are not just sincere but are actually right and truthful.
iv) Theories of knowledge that traditional orthodox Christianity (not developed during the modern or enlightenment era) teaches are much more attractive and compelling than the postmodern’s theories of knowledge.
(1) Foundationalism
(2) Correspondence theory
(a) Supports the referential use of language
(b) Supports a critical realist theory of perception
(3) Coherence theory
c) Keep to the teaching of Jesus
i) The teachings of Jesus correspond with reality and his life gives flourishing life.
(1) Embracing what Jesus teaches and offers will allow the power of the immaterial supernatural realm to be actualized in the material natural realm. One can truly experience the reality of the transcendent realm, the reality that King Jesus rules.
(2) This realm actually includes the physical and the temporal, but it is not limited and is always being restored unto the order of the King.
(3) All other worldviews consider alternative realities, which fall very short in accessing this transcendent reality and offering what King Jesus offers.
(4) He taught of and made available a reality – the kingdom of heaven, which he governs as King – where true human flourishing occurs and all humans can be truly satisfied.
(5) Here, one can experience the greatest flourishing by living a life, experiencing reality, which resembles the life of the man who flourished the most.

…END

A critique of recent criticism on the New Testament Canon Formation

Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” portrays Constantine as the supposed creator of the canon when he suppressed 80 gospel accounts in favor of the canonical 4. The book’s popularity is not surprising considering the content uproots a complex and confusing issue of the New Testament canonization. It’s common knowledge, that the validity of Christianity is based on God’s revelation to mankind written down in a collection of “inspired” works we call the Bible. This collection is what is of interest, not only in the popular fiction, but in recent scholarly circles of the past 2 decades. In fact, Robert Funk, the leader of the Jesus Seminar, is attempting to redefine the canon saying, “The Bible is a ‘cultural artifact’ and that biblical scholars have the moral responsibility to determine what belongs to the fundamental cultural legacies of Christianity and Judaism.”
This “reforming” of the works of the Bible has actually been subjected to various levels of inquiry throughout Christendom since the works were first read. Consequently, many questions concerning the “inspired works” must now be addressed again by conservative evangelical scholars to maintain intellectual integrity when defending the attacks on the validity of the New Testament. The following questions, once raised during the time of the early church, must be addressed again: Are the right books in the New Testament? What criterion is used in the formation of the canon? Who determines the criteria? Are the selectors/councils inspired? Is the selection process inspired? Answers are available, but not without contention.
Much has been written on the canon and its formation, but most influential and scholarly of recent works, is Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.[1] Metzger unfolds the chronological history of the canon formation, addressing the people and events that complicate, drive, and determine the canon. Columbia philosopher Richard Carrier has summarized Metzger’s work and addressed major flaws in the canon formation in his essay “The formation of the New Testament Canon”[2] Consistently, Carrier has the same contentions in each section. I gathered Carrier’s points of criticism and found them to be common to other critic’s who doubt that the present canon is the appropriate collection of inspired works.
In this paper, I contend that the present day New Testament is the accurate & correct collection of inspired works God intended for us to have as His revelation to mankind. To show this, I will argue that the criteria used by the early church in canonizing works was appropriate, and consequently, other works which do not meet the early church criteria should not have been canonized. I will then refute 4 of Carrier’s (as well as others) points criticism of the canon by showing them to be unhistorical, unjustified, and flawed. Thus, concluding, that these ancient and modern attempts at forming an alternative canon are unwarranted.
The Early Church’s Canonization Criteria
The need for written authoritative works to drive the early church became very apparent in the 2nd century. Early Christians were being persecuted and dying for books they were not sure were even considered sacred or holy. The apostles were dying off and the need for testimonial & directive records were increasing. As a result, the greatest need for the early church was not just the emergence of a governing ecclesiastical authority, but the emergence of an authoritative body of written works. The New Testament was necessary and actually inevitable.[3]
Some 2nd century lists were formed on acceptable works to be read in the early churches. Among other writers and leaders, Iraneaus, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of Ignatius, a disciple of John, was the first to actually identify the books of the present New Testament. Metzger says that Iraneaus and other early church fathers, “tend to show that an implicit authority of such writings (not yet canonized works) was sensed before a theory of their authority had been developed.”[4] In addition, New Testament professor and Fuller Seminary director Arthur Patzia points out that, “It is difficult to determine the status of the gospels but many scholars would date the acceptance of the gospels and Pauline epistles as scripture at the turn of the 1st century.”[5] Such that, the extent at which the said canonical works were referenced in various other non-canonical works give us a somewhat adequate understanding of the progression of the emerging recognized written authority. It seems then that the majority of writers and leaders in the early church accepted and recognized a core of works, the 4 canonical gospels and the Pauline epistles, but much controversy remained concerning the many other written works of the period. Confusion resulted and ratification of a final collection would soon be necessary.
The criteria used by the early church can be best presented and defined in the list as shown below[6]:
1. Apostolicity - Authority by apostle or apostolic associate
2. Antiquity – 1st generation Christian leader authorship
3. Authenticity – Historical traditions as to writings’ authorship and authority
4. Ubiquity – Acceptance and use by churches
5. Catholicity – Consonance with known New Testament writings and the churches “rule of faith” in the case of debated writings

Some New Testament Scholars, including former President of the Society for New Testament Study and distinguished professor F.F. Bruce suggest that the criteria only consisted of Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, and Catholicity. Likewise, Metzger uses these 3, and only mentions antiquity and authenticity as an attribute of canonical works but not actual criteria. Here orthodoxy entails that the theology of the works coheres with the beliefs of the early church where catholicity refers to the works proved widely useful for the churches, in that none of the texts contradict another but could have a “wide measure of diversity among them.”[7] On the other hand, the criteria of apostolicity is unique to the others, in that, it entails the works were written by a divinely appointed spokesperson, the apostles or the apostles’ disciples. Because of their experiences with Jesus, the apostles have a unique function in salvation history similar to that of the prophets of the Old Testament, that is both were fundamental sources of revelation. Thus, apostolicity is the only criteria by itself that merits inclusion of a work into the canon.
Interestingly, inspiration is not included in either list, because inspiration can be better thought of as a corollary of canonicity rather than a criteria of it.[8] The early church used the term inspiration when referring to various works, where non-canonical works were considered inspired and the canonical works were both inspired and authoritative – authoritative because of the apostolic witness which they depend. Early Christian writers rarely used the term non-inspired, except when designating heretical works. Thus, inspiration is not a criteria of canonicity and not a unique characteristic of canonical writings.[9]
Once the principles of canonicity developed in the church, the extent of the NT was fixed, that is, the canon was complete when the works were finished, not when they were collected. Certain books were not excluded or included in the canon based on councils or individuals, but excluded themselves from the canon. Famed Scottish theologian William Barclay noted, “It is the simple truth to say that the NT books became canonical because no one could stop them from doing so.”[10] What remains as the canon resulted from a survival of the fittest period that began the history of Christianity. This does not imply that various random sequence of events molded the canon, but rather, various guided funneling factors shaped the debate and the history of canonization. Metzger adds,
“The church recognized, accepted, affirmed, and confirmed the self authenticating quality of certain documents…In fact, whatever judgment we may form of the earliest times, it is certain that those who discerned the limits of the canon had a clear and balanced perception of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[11]

This recognition sheds light on the often referencing of the canonical books and the widespread usage of certain books in the early church. Therefore, we find that the criteria is not that which determined the canon, but is what enforced it.
To further clarify the canon’s formation, Metzger accurately dichotomizes the canon as either a “collection of authoritative texts” or an “authoritative collection of texts.” The former defines the canon as the collection of certain works that were recognized early by the early church as authoritative works containing the words of Jesus and the testimony of the apostles. This view of the canon affirms that the works possessed intrinsic worth prior to their having been assembled, that their authority is grounded in their nature and source, and that the church recognized their inherent authority. The latter defines the canon as that which resulted because the collecting of the books gave the books authority they did not possess prior to having been assembled, that is, the Church created their authority by collecting them. The protestant position holds to the former view that can also be described as the norma normans (the rule that prescribes) doctrine as opposed to the liberal or deistic norma normata (the rule that is prescribed) doctrine. The latter is obviously the view that Carrier holds, which will be addressed in the following section.
It seems then, that the core set of works, the Pauline epistles and the 4 gospels, were more obviously appropriate for canonization because of their early acceptance as authoritative. The “fringe” works (Acts, 1st & 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) were less obvious to the early church, especially in light of the many competing writings of the time. As Metzger concludes, that “the making of the empirical canon required a long period of time and involved a complex historical process that progressed, not in a straight line, but in a zig-zag development.”[12] This lack of order and confusion of the early church concerning canonical works was in fact the shaping process that had to occur, regardless of how messy it seemed. Eventually, the Church succeeded in finding the appropriate works and excluding the others. Carrier’s criticism of Metzger’s view of the canon formation is certainly that this “zig-zag development” is absurd, and is more like a mess that the following 6 points make clear.
1) That certain books were to be considered sacred depending on the leader’s theology, preferences, & political ends rather than objective historical grounds.

In light of certain works of theology written in the 2nd century (Defense of the Christians by Athenagoras of Athens, Against All Heresies and a Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching by Iraneaus, and Apology by Justin Martyr), early Christians & churches developed and sharpened their canon. Carrier notes that when reading these early influential works, the authors’ character & judgment on moral issues of their day have never been without question, so how can one even begin to accept their theology. Carrier likens this theology of the few to a politician of today quickly influencing the many, shaping public opinion on controversial issues. Carrier goes on to point out that
“the group that decided which texts would be heretical was that which had the most vested interest in such a project: the most powerful leaders of the various churches whose authority was being challenged. It should not be forgotten however that the challengers were also leaders of their own churches.”[13]

In addition, Justin Martyr, a prominent Christian thinker, was “probably influenced by his location (Rome)” in his theology and preferred canon. Justin’s disciple Tatian instructed his Syrian church to read “nothing else” but his Diatessaron[14], Paul, and the Acts. Tatian didn’t include 1st Timothy in his orthodox church because of the leniency on wine, meat, and marriage. Tertullian also attacks 1st Timothy primarily because of women in the ministry. Tertullian is noted the first instance of organized action against authors of new Christian source-texts. Carrier remarks,
“Although such action is necessary for there to be any hope of control over a reliable textual tradition in a milieu of wanton invention and combative propaganda, the fact that it only begins at such a late date is another blow against those who set their hopes on having complete confidence in the present canon…Thus, as we will see more than once, doctrine, not objective concern for history, loomed large behind the charge of falsification--so we are faced with uncertainties all over again.”

Carrier also points out that many works were preferred over others for ridiculous reasons. Iraneaus includes the Hermas (a non-canonical work) as holy Scripture, but rejected Tatian’s Diatessaron because he reasoned that 4 gospels is symbolic in light of the 4 principal winds, 4 directions of the world, 4 living creatures, 4 principal covenants. Also, Cyprian says “superstitiously” there are only 4 gospels, because there are 4 rivers in Paradise and of Paul and John each wrote to seven churches according to "the seven sons in the song of Hannah"[15]
It seems Carrier attacks the character of these influential authors (fallacy argumentum ad hominem), presenting them as a group that are attempting to propagate subjective theology for selfish reasons. There is no case made by Carrier, nor are there historical grounds for justifying the early church leaders’ political gain for voicing opinions. Its true that the theology of the leader, not the struggle for ecclesiastical power or fame in the early church, is what drove acceptance of various works over others. But Carrier presents their views out of context. Carrier attacks their judgment on canonization by referring to their “superstitious” like preferences without revealing their entire theology.
Moreover, I concur that there were some very ridiculous reasons of the early leaders to include and exclude certain work. But Carrier does not counter with reasons for certain works, such as the Hermas or the Diatessaron, inclusion, he merely points out very selective bad reasons for their exclusion. He argues for an irrelevant conclusion (fallacy ignoratio elenchi) of the non-objective grounds for the canonizing works, by never pointing out the content, theology, or relevance of these works and why the rest of the early church rejected them. He combines bad reasons of a few with bad theology of the entire early church (fallacy of unrepresented sample).
2) Authoritative declarations by un-inspired Church leaders were decisive in influencing the population, to reject certain works and keep certain works.

Augustine, one of Christianity’s greatest philosophers, codified Jerome’s criteria, “prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive”[16] Carrier points out several problems with this. Which churches are catholic, are those churches that accept Augustine’s opinion, namely non-dissenting Eastern churches. Further, Augustine begins a circular argument: books that are accepted by the church should be accepted by the church. Finally, he fallaciously appeals to the masses.
Furthermore, Cyril, the Bishop of Jerusalem, authoritatively issued a series of basic theology lectures for indoctrinating the church which included a strict & specific canon (today’s New Testament, except revelation). Also, Athanasius used his authority as the Bishop of Alexandria in his annual edict.[17] In it he declared to the entire church, east and west, which works are to be the Scriptures (today’s New Testament) and non other should be added or taken away. Concerning Augustine, Cyril, and Athanasius determination, Carrier concludes that “this is not an objective methodology by any stretch, and is entirely driven by blind tradition and the demands of authoritarian dogma.”[18]
But Carrier’s assessment of Augustine’s statement is wrong, that is, he does not argue circularly. Instead, he argues that the books accepted by every Catholic church are books that are already considered canonical and should remain canonical and the disputable books, those that aren’t universally accepted, should be rejected. There is no circularity here; the reasoning is that the church at large already accepts these works so they should continue to “prefer” them. Augustine actually is valid in appealing to the masses because the masses are the church, the body the proposed Scripture is meant for that recognized its canonical qualities. Carrier falsely declares that the authoritative dictations is that which defined the canon, this is the tail wagging the dog. The authoritative dictations are the assessments of the widespread acceptance by the church, a criteria (Catholicity) that defined the canon. Thus, Carrier invalidly argues against the reasoning of the authority and incorrectly refers to the acceptance of the masses as “fallacious” to make a case for faulty non-objective criteria in determining the canon. It should be noted again Carrier never addresses the actual content and authorship of the material being included or excluded.




3) Councils voted on and ratified into existence what was to be considered God’s Word.

Carrier states that Cyril’s influence on the Synod of Laodicea is “almost certain,” where leaders declared only canonical works should be read in the church. That the synod just met to confirm that canon which was declared by the authority of Cyril. There was no criteria for the decision nor was there a stated list of works that this included. Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. (M 237-8). The synods conveniently just declared the debatable Hebrews to be from Paul.
This was official at the Trullan synod in 692, when emperor Justinian & eastern bishops met – much confusion. Athanasius & Cyril’s canon were deemed authoritative to the church at large. But they contradicted each other regarding revelation. Trullan codified the 85th canon supposedly from the 4th century attributed to Clement of Rome (non-4th century) as sacred. It included 2 letters of Clement and 8 other books, “which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them.” Widespread confusion resulted in the Eastern churches. Finally, the Council of Florence declared the canon of Augustine final in 1443 A.D. and enforced it as universal at Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
Protestant churches had their own councils and basically declared the same as Trent but not after much of the same debates of 1,000 years prior. Luther’s criteria was everything that agrees with Paul and preaches Christ is a priori true and to be held in the highest esteem, while everything else is to be doubted. He doubted Hebrews and Jude because they contradict the teachings of Paul. But Luther declared that he did not want to remove them from such a venerable collection. Thus, not only dogmatic presupposition, but mere tradition wins the canon - not objective scholarship.
Carrier overall claim here, that certain councils subjectively ratified a canon into existence that otherwise would not have been, is a misrepresentation of history. Certain non-orthodox movements complicated the canonical formation, while still propelling the orthodox to justify their own. It was because of confusion and diversity amongst the churches at different times up to the time of the Reformation, councils met to clarify the canon. The various views challenged the councils to define its boundaries and doctrines and to include or exclude various “fringe” books. Carrier seems to commit the causal fallacy of wrong direction (the direction of cause and effect is reversed), in that, he designates the council as the force that caused the canon, when in fact the Church caused the canon and the councils declared it as such. Concerning the included “fringe” works and the claim that councils created canons, F.F. Bruce states,
“The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon… recognizing their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect.”[19]

One would not expect to see a vote of every parishioner in the land each time the canon was challenged, but rather, that a group of leaders (the church deemed responsible) met to defend the Church’s theology is perfectly reasonable. The issue for Carrier is not that Church required and relied on administration and leadership to form its canon, but that the church actually could have appropriately formed it through an uninspired council.



4) Influential translations of certain works became the popular reading of many churches, thus diffusing other less preferred translations of certain works.

The main translator of consideration here is the influential scholar Jerome. Jerome’s translation (the Latin Vulgate Bible) of certain works were widely accepted as literarily sound and endorsed by Augustine. It was sent to the pope and would become the text of the western Catholic Church. Jerome accepts Hebrews as an authority even though he admits the authorship is uncertain, believed the Epistle of Barnabus should be accepted, but rejected it in light of the criteria, and accepts the book of Jude, but not Enoch, based on this criteria. But if Enoch is non-canonical, then Jude must be out also, because it quotes Enoch. Carrier states that Jerome’s criteria and reasoning “contradicts all objective sense”[20]
Carrier does not offer reasons as to why Jerome’s influential translation being accepted and others being put aside is unreasonable, but merely suggests that this excluding of certain works is non objective because it causes them to be forgotten. Its true that many works have been unfortunately forgotten and completely lost in history, but it is not clear that the criteria that Jerome adhered to “contradicts all objective sense.” Carrier’s assessment of Jerome’s selection is based on what would be reasonable if one was not adhering to the early church’s criteria. Jerome’s omission of Enoch and Barnabus is perfectly reasonable and objective because he judges the works based on an objective criteria, rather than a subjective one.
Moreover, just because the authorship of Hebrews is uncertain, does not warrant its omission. It is widely held that Hebrews is a 1st century work written by an apostle or his associate, which is in fact criteria for canonization. What is not entirely clear is which apostle or associate. Carrier himself admits that it was Jerome’s ideal canon solely because these books had been long held in respect by the churches and that Jerome held to the criteria despite his own preferences.[21]
Conclusion

Carrier continually pushes objective scholarship as a means of canonizing certain works. He strives to maintain no bias in his pursuit of truth, while admitting that he is “emphasizing those facts most relevant to secularists and seekers.”[22] Its seems Carrier’s presuppositions that time cannot lend itself to better a collection is ungrounded and has guided his investigation. That while admiring and complementing certain scholars of the early church, Carrier extracts certain quotes out of their text to his advantage. He gives no room a priori to their “objective” scholarship in theology, administration, or judgment. Carrier’s points criticism of the canon them to be unhistorical, unjustified, and flawed.
Furthermore, Carrier falsely portrays the early church as misguided, divisive, and non-unified that appeals to unsound doctrinal themes and traditions. What Carrier lacks in his assessment is in fact objective historical truth. He fails to understand that the church quickly strengthened its defense against heretical doctrines and gathered a collection of recognized authoritative works. It did take time to acknowledge the recognized collection because of the many varying other works produced. But, by maintaining its objective stance on their sound criteria, eventually the church obtained the appropriate body of works God intended for them to have.
Overall, it seems that the criteria of the early church was effective in capturing the appropriate texts and releasing others. Although criteria may vary today much as it did then, there is still only one criteria that is sound and justified, and thus only one canon. Consequently, the ancient and modern attempts at forming an alternative canon are unwarranted. Therefore its reasonable to conclude that the present day New Testament is the accurate and correct collection of inspired works God intended for us to have as His revelation to mankind.























Works Cited


Blomberg, Craig, Robert Hubbard, William Klein. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004.

Bowman, Robert. Scripture, Authority, Canon, and Criticism. La Mirada: Biola
University CSAP 529 Course Outline, 2005.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988.

Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. Leicester:
Intervarsity Press, 1959.

Carrier, Richard. “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from


Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1995.

[1] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[2] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from

[3] Because the goal of the paper is to address criticisms, it is not necessary to rewrite or even summarize the history of the canonization process which Metzger and other historians produce.
[4] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[5] Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995).
[6] Robert Bowman, Scripture, Authority, Canon, and Criticism (Biola University CSAP 529 Course Outline, 2005).
[7] Craig Blomberg, Robert Hubbard, William Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004).
[8] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988).
[9] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[10] William Barclay, The Making of the Bible (London: New York Publishing, 1961).
[11] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[12] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[13] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from
[14] The Diatessaron is Tatian’s work of taking the 4 gospels and making 1.
[15] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[16] Augustine, On Christian Doctrines 2.12
[17] Alexandria was the city with experts in astronomy, so the Bishop there issued an annual edict on the holidays.
[18] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from
[19] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1959).
[20] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from
[21] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[22] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from

The Supernatural Kingdom: 5 of the most important aspects

It is clear in the teaching and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth that the most important aspect of the kingdom, both for the Christian church and individual maturation is that it is available to us now (Matthew 3:2). The gospels do not record the details but mention, with broad strokes, the many miracles that occurred all over the countryside and certain cities at the beginning of his ministry (4:23-25). He said that we will even be a part of greater things than the miracles he performed. The power of the kingdom is the only power that drives out demons, heals the sick from disease, blindness, and infirmities. The kingdom of heaven manifested champions the kingdom of darkness, setting lost and captive Christian people free. This same power reaches the person and breaks the bondages of the enemy setting him free to worship without hindrances.
The second most important aspect of the kingdom is that we can become servants of Jesus the King by living under His kingdom’s reign and rule. Many times our lives are caught up in building our own personal kingdoms. Jesus desires that we store up treasures in heaven and that we lose our life for His sake (Matthew 16:25). By living for his kingdom, our service is performed unto the King. This frees us from the pressure to strive for fulfillment in an endlessly decaying world where moth and dust destroy. This gives us freedom to live without anxiety and depression.
The third most important aspect of the kingdom is the true life-changing power that our hearts are changed by. This accessibility is not to be taken lightly because it truly is what the Lord left to us to experience the divine in our lives by way of the Holy Spirit, our Counselor. He counsels us away from destructive mental, emotional, and behavior patterns into life abundantly. Many believers really do not grasp this foundational and vital concept, that we can access supernatural power from the Holy Spirit to thrive, grow, and change in our dysfunction and unhealthy tendencies. We can only change by accepting the grace and truth that is available in his kingdom.
The fourth most important aspect of the kingdom is the power to become more like the most amazing person of all, Jesus. To become like Jesus is the ultimate calling of every Christian. By seeking this calling out, I can secondarily fulfill all other callings. As I conform to his image and likeness, in my intellect, will, and emotions, I experience my false self fading and my true self changing. He embodies perfect love, truth, joy, freedom, etc., there is no other more life-fulfilling journey I can accept than this. His kingdom empowers me to be more like Jesus on my journey.
The fifth most important aspect of the kingdom is that it is backwards to most of our default understandings of reality. Especially in Western cultures, where truth and reason are well-defined and widely accepted, the kingdom of heaven is not well-defined and most often misunderstood. Throughout the gospels, the followers of Jesus often misunderstood his ministry and teaching: the first shall be last - the last shall be first and if one have faith as small as a mustard seed he can move mountains. Jesus is merely pointing out that we live in a world with two realms, material and immaterial. By embracing the strange features of the immaterial spiritual realm of reality we can being to better understand the nature of him and his kingdom.

A review of Wesley's "On Christian Perfection"

In this piece, John Wesley sets out to first show in what sense Christians are not perfect and second, in what sense Christians are perfect. Both experience and Scripture shows that Christians are not perfect in knowledge in the following ways: the simple truths of love, the profound philosophical theologies, the intervention of God with man, the simple facts about the world. We are weak, tempted, and make mistakes; we are not exempt from these things, nor will we be absolutely perfect, but constantly need to grow in grace.
The latter portion of this piece, Wesley deals with the sense that Christians are perfect. Everyone at some point in his life sins, even the “greatest” Jews in the Bible. Man is subject to be a slave to sin and is stuck in a nature that sins despite trying not to. Salvation from sin was not given until Jesus was glorified. The kingdom of God is now set up for the Holy Spirit to begin work in the lives of those who had redemption. Wesley uses seemingly contradictory scriptures to unravel the mystery of Christ’s redemption from sin. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; he is free from evil thoughts and evil tempers. Thus, the Christian is perfect in this sense because Christ forgave us from our sin and cleansed us from all unrighteousness. Finishing the work with his hymn, “Promise of Sanctification,” Wesley cries out for Christ’s mercy and forgiveness over his life to empty him of sin.

A review of Martin Luther's "Table Talk on Scripture"

In this work, Luther speaks of the importance of Scripture to the life of the Christian. Philosophy is for knowledge of the practical and natural and cannot give knowledge of the spiritual and supernatural; the Scripture gives revelatory knowledge otherwise unknown to man, satisfying the yearning soul and mind. He emphasizes strength and divine guidance from the pages of the Bible, as it was truly God’s word through the writers to us. He powerfully emphasizes the great authority of Scripture compared to other books, commentaries, and forces set out to destroy it. Learned men should take the Bible as it is in its purest form, not misinterpret it with the influence of commentaries or study faulty translations. The text ought to be studied continuously to find the deeper meanings of scripture, though he admitted to still constantly study the 10 commandments, Lords Prayer, and such. The Bible is a book that makes the fools of this world wise and learning from it is by the plain and should be esteemed as a precious fountain that never exhausts He humbly declares his small knowledge of the text, but stands resisting to the opposing rule of the Holy Roman Church, its pope, philosophers, theologians and tradition.

A review of Augustine's "On Grace & Free Will"

Augustine is writing to Valentinus and his school addressing the doctrinal theory of grace and its relation to human free will. In this work, Augustine begins by affirming the existence of human free will from evidence in morality, conviction, and scripture. God calls us to live a life of obedience to His precepts and scripture especially in the area of sexual purity, marriage is a gift and if one isnt married he endures from God's grace. Those who are ignorant of the law are still sinning, those who willingly remain ignorant and sin are worse, and those who know the law and sin are even worse. Matters of the will are changeable by the person. The sting of death is sin, and the law is the strength of sin. Palagians believe that good works are a way to obtain God's grace. They advocate a system of reward in return for works and thus, righteousness for effort. Augustine argues from the OT and NT that one must depend on grace for righteousness, which cannot be attained by anything man manufactures. The victory over sin is nothing but the gift of God, His grace accomplishes are overcoming. When temptation engages our free will, Christ admonishes us to pray for God help. Thus, free will and God's grace are simultaneously connected. We draw near to God and he will draw near to us. Its our believing through faith that opens the door for His will to be done, but even our act of believing was initiated and attracted by His grace. Palagians try to twist scripture, and say that our seeking of God is proof of his reward for our works. Paul considered himself evil, but grace was provided for him in that state, so even when he was not seeking God's grace was in him. Only through Him and leaning on Him can we be forgiven, washed clean, and so anything. Palagians profess that the grace we get is only for the forgiveness of sins. Augustine responds: Every good and perfect gift is from above. Paul fought with the power of God and His strength. Faith itself was a gift from God. Faith produces a character that will do good works. How is eternal life both a rewared of grace and faith? Augustine answers that the grace of God is eternal life. We become alive again in a new way only by His grace, this is eternal life, not done by works but his forming, molding, and creating. We receive grace for grace, not grace for works, which is also unlike death from sin; its through His compassion and mercy. By the law we acknowledge sin, without the law there is freedom. The Palagians believe the law is the grace of God. Augustine refutes saying that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

A review of Martin Luther's "On Christian Liberty"

The 1st part is called “Letter to Pope Leo III” - addressing the pope concerning the sin and demoralization of the Roman Court that he governs. Luther attacks the cultural phenomena of attributing glory to popes. Luther encounters his opposition, Eccius, Cajetan, & Miltitz; requests Leo’s help in curbing his attackers until the matter is less confused. He desires peace, but must defend Christ his master when challenged. The pope ought not to listen to those who falsely proclaim him as lord of the world, a god, holder of the people’s salvation, and only true interpreter of scripture. Without Christ in him, the pope is nothing more than an idol, who leads the church astray; servant humility is key. The pope should guard against sways of Rome. Luther offers the treatise as a gift for the pope’s spiritual benefit.
The 2nd part is called “Concerning Christian Liberty – the beginning of the treatise”. Man is body and soul, which are spiritually opposed. The inward man is renewed; the outward actions cannot affect the soul. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can renew the soul. The soul is justified by faith alone in the word, not by works. Christ is necessary for salvation, no other means can bring righteousness; its an incomparable treasure for the freedom of all men. The precepts in the Bible reveal to man’s impossibility to fulfill them. Whosever has faith has all the promises of God, those that don’t, have nothing. The Christian then is free and has liberty from the law, in that faith is sufficient for the fulfillment of God’s promises. By firmly believing the promises of God by faith we attribute Him the highest glory. The 2-fold person of Christ is perfectly righteous that when we marry him through faith, we receive all his righteousness and he takes all our sin as if its his own; hell can’t contain him though because he is perfect and swallows up our. By Christ’s birthright, priesthood, divinity he reigns strong despite our weakness, we share the authority-overcoming death.
The 3rd part is called “Conclusion of the Treatise”. No good works could save the soul. Good works come from a good man, who is made righteous by faith. Good works in themselves are not what is contrary, but the notion that works are a means of righteousness. True Christianity is being like Christ in his voluntary serving from the love for another. The apostles exemplified and taught this. Christians ought not to attack the practices of the church, but be neutral. Use liberty to fight vigorously against the tyrants. Teach against the ease the soul falls into works & the world. We must seek God’s grace to pursue righteousness.

A review of Anselm's "Cur Deos Homo" (Why the God-man)

In this work, Anselm addresses issues relating to man’s salvation is possible through the perfect sacrifice of Christ, paying the price for our sin, which we could not have re-payed ourselves. He wants to write down in a letter the proofs of the doctrines of faith he holds as a dialogue between Boso and himself. Anselm begins by answering questions Boso has from “infidels” who attack Christianity for its specific beliefs on God and salvation, suggesting other possible avenues for sin and redemption. Anselm follows with the mindset to show there is one way and that way is necessary – couldn’t be otherwise. The explanations and reasoning of Anselm is to strengthen the faith and gratify the intellect of believers and instruct the infidels.
Anselm defines sin and how to satisfy sin. God couldn’t have pardoned sin out of compassion because that would be injustice and lying on God’s part. But, because God is inherently and consistently honorable, the justice performed is punishment by death. Anselm debates with Boso on whether the number of fallen angels is to be replaced by the number of the elect. We are obligated to pay a penalty and be punished for our sins, but nothing we can give, even our whole hearted contrite devotion to him is only what we are already obligated to give Him as He is due honor. But, just because man is unable to pay for sin, that is not an excuse, plus he brought this inability on himself. We have nothing that can repay the debt we owe. Christ suffered willingly, and was compelled by God – not forced by the eternal will of God. It must be a voluntary death, because a obligated one is what a man is due to perform. Also, it must be a perfect man, because man is always sinful and because of that he cannot give over and above his debt, a perfect man can give the extra amount that satisfies God. That is, a sinner cannot justify a sinner. Man’s salvation is possible only by the necessity of Christ, and man’s restoration to happiness is through Christ’s payment.
In Second Book, Anselm begins by affirming man’s holiness and how man can live in happiness. God’s will will be completed and man will be resurrected with a incorruptible body. Only God as man could have performed and be the perfect sacrificial death, because only God is perfect. God was behooved to be a man of Adam’s seed and born of a virgin woman, because a virgin woman is the cause and source of our sin and salvation. Anselm explains the necessity of the Word is a man with two natures, which leads to a mystery but is reasonable for God. Christ’s freely laying down his life allows God, in His omnipotence to raise it up again. Christ’s death is outweighs the sin of the whole world, even those who live in the future. If Christ was not born to die, he would not have been born at all. Christ death was necessary but was out of his own power and free choice it was of his fixed will. God took a man without sin and made from a sinful substance to break the power of sin. This gift of God, God as man dying for all of our sins, is the greatest thing other than God himself. The reward Christ’s receives is life, but bestowed upon those in debt; it was necessary for a sinner’s salvation. God’s compassion and holiness is clearly shown in the just payment, a ransom for our souls. It is impossible for the devil to be reconciled because their nature is not a nature that is redeemable. The God man originated in the Old Testament, and the words of the Old Testament are shown to be true. The conclusions of this argument are based on reason, that can be attributed to God.

Supernatural & Causation: Hume introduces his view on the miraculous to the world

Hume’s argument is simply this: If every impression is a distinct experience item (entirely loose & separate from another experience item), then no necessary connection between exist between 2 ideas from 2 impressions. How do we know that if I jump off a large cliff it will cause falling and falling causes crashing. There is no reason in nature. No musts that A causes B. There are only two ways we can know that I will fall, Reason and Experience.

Reason has two entities, Deduction and Induction. Hume’s argument of the common deductive premise concerning causation is: it has always been this was in the past, will always be this way in the future. Past uniformities will continue in the future. This was the accepted thought in science, up till Hume. There is no necessity in the falling man’s cause, it could have been a number of causes that made him fall. Furthermore, one can’t define his expectation from consistency of events as “necessary connection”. One can expect falling from pushing because he’s seen consistency in occurrences of falling from pushing, but expectation is not necessity. Therefore, there is no necessity in causation, the deductive premise fails.

His argument against the common inductive premise is: its highly probable that A causes B. Science is limited to this empirical generalization. No matter how often a man being pushed off a cliff is followed by a man falling off the cliff, we have no rational basis for it probably to follow that way in the future. Nothing is more probable than anything else. The fact that chance exists defeats the common inductive premise.

The other way we know reality is experience. Necessary connection is not a repeated sequence of experiences, like experiments of physics, laws of thermodynamics are “consistencies” found true for every experiment of thermodynamic properties/events. These are matters of fact. Matters of fact are reducible to sensations, we use experiences or tests to figure it out. This relates to Hume’s criterion. Any one time experience of examining a man falling from the cliff, the observed is the primary and secondary properties of the event. Size, color, velocity, shape, etc. For a single event we can’t find anything else that caused it, we wonder and imagine what pushed the man or how he slipped, but observation of the man falling is not observation of a cause. External objects don’t give us ideas of a necessary connection. Sense data are loosely contingently related. So we can’t know things by experience.

We have no reason or justification to think that A causes B. If we expect because of reason, we cautiously wander from moment to the next disconnected moment. When every datum is “loose and separate” every occurrence is a brand new event. We start from scratch every moment. We are flooded with disconnected uniformities and sense data. Moment by moment – loosely connected if at all.

Overall the above line of thought by Hume on causation seem consistent with his position on miracles except that he doesn’t believe in miracles. No one knows what will happen next. We can’t live based on the occurrences in the past. Every moment is new and fresh. The reality of this world may or may not change. The physics of yesterday are yesterdays, and today the physics may change. The realm of the supernatural may be available in the natural, at any moment. We don’t know if the next breath I take will be breathing in oxygen, that used to help me, but now kills me. A miracle is surely conceivable, because we have no reason or experience to say that it didn’t happen or can’t happen. Here Hume could have reached out to the supernatural and touch it. But that didn’t happen, he remained detached from the supernatural.

The Curiosity on God's Reality in Medieval and Modern Philosophy

Medieval philosophy emphasized an infinitely good God and assumed man’s finitude and sin. The analysis of St. Thomas’ metaphysical adventures gave a certain unity and cohesion to the culture and its intellectual life. Nothing was uncertain or probable. The universe consisted of fine-tuned intricate substances hand-crafted by God Himself. God was the designer of the universe, and its function, but also designed every life, perfectly and unique. God did this to bring Himself glory; every person created, every animal, and every particle for His purpose and destiny. Man was just a variable in a mathematical equation, whose domain was limited to God’s plan, but at the same time had a free will to accept or deny the discipline (salvation). All knowledge could be branched and explained from this basis and commonly held view. Science, Astronomy, Sociology, Government, Culture, Death, Happiness, Suffering, Eating, Battles, etc. were instruments that pointed to something beyond them. They weren’t important pieces to the puzzle or pieces at all, just a means to an end. The universe was a purposed religious system and pointed man to religion and God. It was a just a stage set for the drama play between man and God.

All things were purposefully deeper meaning for man than just what they appeared as. Animals, trees, government, science, and food all called man to see beyond the object and into a higher order of life, a realm uncertain, and a life that’s supernatural. Man’s intriguing into the universe was man’s escape of his limited understanding and mental structure. Man’s curiousity was not in just finding how Paley’s clock worked, but in finding the clockmaker, and finding his way to his purpose/role in the play, a saved child of God.

The modern view of Hume/Russell abandoned the medieval view for a conception of the universe to one that was incompatible with the objectivity of values. The modern mind then called for just the facts, just the objects, just the science. There is nothing more to physics than physics, it points to nothing else. We can’t know anything beyond that, because all talk of a deeper meaning of an ocean(object) is meaningless. We can only know the facts, facts indifferent to men’s values, and facts that no one can explain with an end in view. Take the ocean for what it is, it just so happens that we find it “to stand in sorts of spatiotemporal relations that can be ascertained by the techniques of modern science” (Jones). Microscopes or telescopes don’t reveal God or salvation, just cells and stars. If belief in reality constitutes accepting the results of science/technology, no belief in God or souls or purpose is allowed. The values that supposedly made up the universe are only just accepted by a subjective mind.

This was Hume’s empiricist's criterion of meaning. Objectify something, don’t be afraid of where it takes you, run with it with no end in sight. Furthermore, one can't live knowing what to expect next because every moment is loosely connected to the next. There is no destiny/purpose in each moment, because no necessary connection exists between a cause and effect. We cannot know a cause from reason(deductive or inductive) nor experience, all we can know is the effect(object). We examine in detail the function of the object and its properties, but can only hypothesize/think/intrigue on its cause. Hume’s curiousity went against the flow and beyond the purpose related explanations. What came from this is a revolution of culture, power, and thought separate from religion/God as we know our world today.

The comparison of the modern to the medieval shows both views as highly curious. The medieval’s curiousity lied in the supernatural realms of God. The universe was a vast display of God’s unmeasurable being. One could not ever stop discovering things, because each discovery echoed the unfathomable. On the contrary, modern’s curiousity lied in the discoveries of what things are, disconnected from every other thing and taken in all of its beauty with no one’s cloudy desires attached. One could find enlightenment, novelty, and freshness in every breath. A high-energy physicist says this place is weird. A mind of a child.

The medieval view is more curious because although moderns focus is on the end not the means. They get knowledge because they want to know everything about the world. Maybe with the hope of reproducing it( allure to power and control). But, the medievals don’t care about the being God just knowing Him, or trying to. For who can know an infinite God. They’ll never completely know him. They’re content with there endless intriguing, and will forever be curious.