Peter van Inwagen & the Resurrection of the Body

I'm quickly growing to love this topic. In preparing for my presentation at the Rethinking Hell conference I've shifted my thinking on many a Christian topic. Not in regards to anything that would contradict Scripture or the Creeds, but on more ancilarry items that affect how I regard a lot of secondary doctrines. 

But that's not why you clicked the link.

Peter van Inwagen is quite helpful in this area for me, and I count him as both a mentor and a bit of a guide in the dark in regards to philosophy; an area I am woefully untrained in. This was his unpublished paper and I present part of it for your viewing pleasure. 

Please read and enjoy.

Van Inwagen:

Most people in most cultures believe in a life beyond the grave. They tell stories about it. But not all cultures tell the same story. Some cultures tell stories of reincarnation or metempsychosis. In our western culture there is a tendency to tell stories of the sort we see in the movie Ghost (you may remember it: Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Swayze, and Demi Moore). 

In this movie, dead people rise from their corpses, and have a kind of diaphanous existence. They look like human beings (to anyone who can see them at all), but they are able to pass through living people and walls and other solid things. (Why don’t they fall through the floor, then? You may well ask.) And, of course, they are for the most part invisible to the living. Eventually, bright beings summon them to ascend a beam of light to heaven, or dark, gibbering creatures drag them screaming off to hell. This is, I am afraid, exactly the picture of the afterlife that is current among undergraduates at Notre Dame, although they might be willing to admit that the visual representation of disembodied souls in the movie was either symbolical or what might be called cinematic license. Most of them, every Sunday and major feast day, say the words, “I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” And every time they are present at the baptism of a child, they promise to help the parents and godparents of the newly baptized bring the child up in a faith one of whose tenets is (they say these words), “I believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” But these words mean nothing to them. They say them, but they are getting no more meaning out of them than a famous six-year-old did from another well- known text; reciting the Lord’s Prayer, he said, “And lead us not into Penn Station.” A few days ago, I heard a speech by the President of Notre Dame about the difficulties of teaching theology to Notre Dame undergraduates. President Malloy remarked sententiously that we cannot presuppose, as we once could, that our students will bring some degree of catechetical formation to the study of theology. I don’t think he knows the half of it. 

This picture of death and immortality, the Hollywood-and-Notre-Dame- undergraduate picture, is, I believe, very far from the biblical picture of death and immortality. According to the bible, God formed us out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into us. When, in punishment for our rebellion against him we die and return to the dust out which he raised our first parents, we’re just, well . . . dead. 

For the rest, enjoy it here. The paper is the first one beneath the label Philosophy of Religion.

--Nick

Top 5 Most Mis-Interpreted Bible Verses

Brian Orme wrote a nice piece on what he considers the most abused/misinterpreted/misunderstood verses in the entire Bible. A few of them I found compelling, the others not so much. But the piece is well worth your reading.

Orme:

The Bible is a sharp, double-edged sword — able to piece the heart. However, when portions of the Bible are used in the wrong context, it’s like trying to fight with the butt of the weapon instead of the blade. It’s just not effective.

Over my years in ministry and as an ongoing student of the Bible, I’ve come across many biblical misquotes, misunderstandings and flat-out misuses.

However, if I’m honest, many of these have come from my own lips. I confess: I’ve been guilty of abusing passages, ignoring context and, even at times, stretching the meaning for my own teaching needs, but I’m seeking to reform my loose ways in favor of something much more beneficial — the original interpretation.

His verses are Phil 4:13; Jer 29:11; Matt 18:20; Rom 8:28; and Prov 29:18.

My verses are likely similar, and I list them below. If you are curious as to why I suggest these, just ask.

Matthew 25:46. Genesis 1:1 (well, both creation accounts, but okay). 1 Timothy 2:12. Proverbs 26:4. Colossians 1:20.

--Nick

Masters Thesis, and The Sheep and the Goats

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I've decided that writing over 50 pages per verse (Romans 5 and Matthew 25) that it would result in writing a thesis over 700 pages long. So that is a tad ambitious for a Masters Thesis. 

However, my tentative Masters Thesis would be on a reinterpretation of Matthew 25:31-46. So, yeah.

--Nick

The Destruction of Death, the Final Enemy

"The asyndeton (lack of conjunction) gives the sentence a "strong and decisive prominence" between the two scriptural adaptations (Cf. McCaughey, "Death," p. 251). The present passive is best understood as referring to what takes place at the time of v. 24; that is, it refers to Christ's destroying "every dominion, authority and power." In a sense death, the final enemy to be subdued, is already being destroyed through the resurrection of Christ' but Paul's concern here is with its final destruction, which takes place when Christ's own resurrection as first fruits culminates in the full harvest of the resurrection of those who are his. Death is the final enemy. At its destruction true meaningfulness is given to life itself. As long as people die, God's own sovereign purposes are not yet fully fully realized. Hence the necessity of the resurrection -- so as to destroy death by "robbing" it of its store of those who do not belong to it because they belong to Christ!"

 Dr. Gordon Fee, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians," regarding 1 Cor. 15:26. pg757. 

Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, What about Abuse?

Allison:

David Instone Brewer has written an excellent book on what the Bible has to say about divorce titled: Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities. It is a great read because the author utilizes Biblical scholarship and presents it in an easy to understand way that it practically helpful for pastors and curious laymen. Much of the following comes from this book and if you want more information than I provide, I strongly suggest getting this book.

The following discussion will go through the valid reasons for divorce and out of this, valid reasons to remarry.

The Starting Point: God’s Heart

 One thing is clear: God does not want divorce. In Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:2-12 Jesus tells us “What God has joined together, let no man separate” and He sets this in the context of God’s original desire in creation and the two being one flesh. On top of this He tells us that the only reason why Moses permitted divorce in the first place was because the people’s hearts were hard. Ultimately, God desires reconciliation. The marriage relationship itself is said to be like the relationship between God and us (Eph 5:32) and God does not abandon us when times are difficult or painful (Rom 8:35; Jeremiah 32:40). Consider the book of Hosea where the Prophet’s relationship with his wife was a sign of God’s relationship with His people. Even though his wife turned to prostitution and others, he did not give up on her. God does not give up on us and this is the spirit in which we should first approach all considerations of divorce.

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Musings, Open Theism and the "Openness" of God

I finished reading Greg Boyd's "God of the Possible" in an attempt to learn what the fuss was about regarding open theism. After reading Boyd's slim but intriguing book, I was a bit hungry for more. I glanced through articles by Bruce Ware and other critics and didn't find them compelling. That isn't to say that I found the positive case for open theism particularly persuasive, but I don't think the criticism are particularly strong.

I was particularly struck by T. Richard Rice's (professor of theology and philosophy of religion at Loma Linda University in California) arguments displaying the biblical evidence for such a position of God's openness. They fall into roughly three categories:

1. God's feelings. 

God experiences "regret" over creation and making Saul king. (Gen 6:6 and I Sam 15:35). Another example appealed to is the book of Jonah, specifically chapter three verse four. The proclamation of judgment is instead relented and replaced with verse ten, asserting that God would not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened (based off NIV translation).

Scripture offers multiple poignant instances of God being portrayed as a jilted lover, as His chosen people refuse His love. Especially see the description within the book of Hosea, with emphasis on chapter 2. He is also described as a "jealous God" in Exodus 20:5 and as a "husband desiring reconciliation" with his wife, Israel (Jer 3).

2. God's intentions.

Another example is found in Exodus 32:14, where God relents from bringing the threatened disaster against the Israelites for their idolatry. To add another concept, God listened to a human mediator, Moses, who reminded God of the promises made to the patriarchs (v11-13). According to George A.F. Knight in his commentary on Exodus, when Moses urges God to repent, he uses the very same word that the prophets used when appealing to Israel to stop from sinning.

God is slow to anger (Num 14:18, Ex 34:6) and this is shown in His 'judgment' over Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:16-33. Apparently, God 'listened' to Moses and like a pro, Moses got the count down to ten. I'm uncertain how this all fits together, but I did find the raw evidence compelling.

Some of these passages have even prompted well-known Fuller Theological Seminary OT professor at John Goldingay to say that much of this does indeed sound like open theism.

3. God's actions. 

Dr. Rice notes that, "...the very concept of an act involves change." The biblical support for these are impressive. We see creation (Gen 1-2), turning hatred to salvation (Gen 45:4-7) and ultimately turning from Saul to David (I Samuel 15:35, 16:1-13). These are but a few examples.

I am not an open theist, but I've found the case far more compelling as of late. I think these are worthy of some serious consideration.

--Nick

Recommended reading:

Greg Boyd, "The God of the Possible"
Clark Pinnock and Richard Rice, "The Openness of God"
John Sanders, "The God who Risks"

Women out of Place

Allison:

Growing up I did not face gender discrimination. In fact, at my church in Alhambra and in my home the ability for women to become leaders was not argued for, it was the norm. When I had questions my dad would encourage me to look into the Bible and sort through the passages with him. Even though he gave me his position he taught me how to read the Bible for myself and to arrive at my own conclusions while drawing from other people’s strengths. He would also learn from me as I learned from him. At church my questioning of ideas was only encouraged more and I was never made to feel out of place in many of the discussions the adult men were having. Women also regularly expressed their ideas and took initiative. Our assistant pastor was female. Nothing seemed odd or out of place on that account. I was not told it was ok. The issue did not come up in my environment. All of this to say, I never got the impression that anything was out of the ordinary. I never had a gender crisis or confusion over who I was as a girl or how as a girl I fit into God’s plan. I never thought of myself as acting or thinking like a boy or not being like a girl either. Boys were different from girls, but not over which was supposed to be more active, take more initiative or lead. Even now, my church in Santa Ana has readily funded my seminary education. However, many women in the church have not had my experience or upbringing.

I started to notice that something was a bit different when in an introduction class (special class to meet people and get situated) at Biola I realized I was the only girl. I hadn’t noticed at first since I was too busy engaging in theological discussions with my classmates much as I had always done at church. It was only when the teacher arrived that we all realized we were in this intro class because we were Bible majors. The first thought that occurred to me was: “That’s why we all started talking about theology!” Next I wondered why I was the only girl in the class. The reason did not occur to me. The reason also did not occur to me later for why some people at the school treated me as incompetent (read my stories about sexism). This was generally not the case, but looking back, there were enough “isolated” incidents to make them not so isolated. What also began to be strange to me was when I would hear backhanded compliments about how smart I was—smarter than any other women the person speaking knew. I also began to hear various people describe my own theological interests as masculine. One friend suspected I was just pretending to act feminine sometimes to cover up my masculine tendencies! At the time I had mentally dismissed him as a bit out to lunch since 1) I was a female and so probably was not pretending and 2) Nothing in my previous experience told me only men did theology and debated. I didn’t know it, but the experiences of other people were shaping how they saw me and how they read the Bible.

For the rest, click here.

--Nick

BioLogos & Core Theistic Evolution Tenants

Ted Davis:

(1) The Bible is NOT a reliable source of scientific knowledge about the origin of the earth and the universe, including living things—because it was never intended to teach us about science.

This reflects not only modern scientific knowledge, but also (more importantly) modern biblical scholarship. Peter Enns and some other evangelical scholars have recently stressed this point, initiating a firestorm in the evangelical academic community that, so far, has confirmed my view that evangelicals in general are just not ready to deal with this, even though it is consistent with the classical notion of accommodation. My own comments about the magnitude of the problem, written before the firestorm started, can be found here.

(2) The Bible IS a reliable source of knowledge about God and spiritual things.

Remember the quip that Galileo attributed to Cesare, Cardinal Baronio, “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.” (We discussed this earlier in the series). Evolution was not an issue in Galileo’s day, but this platitude is frequently quoted by advocates of TE—and often without proper attribution to Baronio. Commonality obviously lies in the attitude, not the topic. Many critics of TE are willing to adopt Galileo’s approach when it comes to the Solar System, but not when it comes to evolution: they are anxious to keep Galileo out of the garden of Eden.

(3) Scientific evidence is irrelevant to the Bible—it is simply not a science book.

See above. This needs to be stated separately, since some believers look to science for “proof” of the Bible, just as some unbelievers look to science for “disproof.” Proponents of TE stress that science and the Bible aren’t like apples and oranges; rather, they are more like apples and rocks: you can hold one in each hand without tension, but they have very little in common. We wouldn’t look for God in the phone book, or in an automobile repair manual. Don’t look for science in the Bible. In principle, scientific theories neither support nor threaten the Bible.

(4) The creation story in Genesis 1 is a confession of faith in the true creator, intended to refute pantheism and polytheism, not to tell us how God actually created the world.

This is meant to echo what we said about the Framework View. It is not necessarily true that all TEs accept the Framework View or something like it, but many do. Most would probably say that the Bible is not contradicted by any specific scientific theory of biological diversity—unless that theory oversteps its philosophical boundaries and functions as a kind of religion, what Conrad Hyers called “dinosaur religion.”

(5) The Bible tells us THAT God created, not how God created

Again, this sounds like the Framework View—or, at least, it should. Belief in God the creator is consistent with science, and even supported by some aspects of science; but, it is not a substitute for scientific explanations.

For my part, I see too many similarities between ANE literature and Genesis 1-11 to consider it a historical account, though there may be historical truths involved. However, I think Ted gets close to the heart of the issue, and it not about how one takes the authority of the Bible, how one interprets it.

If one is attempting to stay true to the text, this includes the implication of genre and literary devices within the genre. To extrapolate principles is necessary, but to take every detail literally seems to go beyond the natural scope of the text.

Plus, a TE doesn't deny God created the earth. Imagine for a moment, that creation is linked with itself, and itself reflects the glory of God. In my own eyes, if I share DNA with creatures from the past, that shows me how God not only brought me/us forth, but that we share a special bond with creation. That creation is intrinsically linked.

But, I'm just musing right now. For me, point 5 is the better point; one that I made when I was a staunch OEC.

For the entire article, click HERE.

--Nick

Allah: A Christian Response; Chapter One

WINDING THE WIND

Building off the foundations of his opening about the stakes between Muslims and Christians, Volf begins with a speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI after the crisis over the Danish caricatures of Muhammad in 2006. The relevant portion is quoted below:

"In the international context we are living in at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected."

Volf then begins with a historical analysis behind the initial support from Muslims for the Pope, and then the sudden backlash that followed when the Pope seemingly turned their back on him. Having not studied this issue in any real depth beyond mining the internet for the alleged cartoon, this was a real eye-opener. This is the world's most powerful Christian and he seems to be sounding tolerant and in the mood for the building of inter-religious bridges. What changed?

The Pope said:

"Intolerance and violence can never be justified as a response to offenses, as they are not compatible responses with the sacred principles of religion."

Volf believes that this reference to Muslim's rioting after the caricatures, and the Muslim backlash against the Pope's words was both productive and dissatisfying. The Pope seemed to be revoking his initial support. But the material seems far deeper than just that.

I will confess, it strikes me as both odd and amusing that caricatures would invoke such a violent response, but this coming from an American sitting in his parents house.

Muslim scholars responded with an "Open Letter" that contained a refutation of the Pope's words, a letter that in one year would become the document "A Common Word Between Us and You."

At this point, Volf has contended that the Pope has actually revealed a great chasm between both Abrahamic religions. His history lesson, build on modern principles, extrapolates from the past wars to create a tapestry of open wounds and smoldering fissions. There is a distinction made between Christianity's "God as reason" and Islam's "God as pure will" that travels back to the 14th century. Miroslav contends that historical Christianity seems to teach that God encourages reason, deliberation and persuasion; the perception of Islam is far more based on arbitrary violence and the use of the sword. In Benedict XVI's view, the Muslim God is a completely arbitrary deity, and therefore Islam is incompatible with deliberative democracy.

Now given that the Pope made comments about freedom and the "intolerance" of Islam in his speech, he inadvertently opened old wounds and showed a perceived distinction between both faiths. For me, this was illuminating. Whatever your thoughts thus far, Volf cannot be dismissed as not chasing the devil into the tall reeds of details.

From my own experience, I have noticed a great chasm between both faiths, but I had never thought to reconcile them together. I still don't think we really can, but Volf has certainly planted something in there. Away we go.

GENERAL RIVER OF CONSIDERATIONS

Even beyond the distinctions between Christianity and Islam (trinity being a big one), Volf contends (himself a strong trinitarian) that he has no interest in creating religious pluralism. He seems to view that as an intellectual cop-out and too easy to fall into. Christians, we are not dealing with some crazed liberal fundamentalist out to overturn everything we hold dear. Nor are we dealing with an impotent scholar who cannot recognize his beard from his nose. Miroslav Volf's work cannot be dismissed, and it ought not be. In fact, in an interview he admitted that the blurb on the back of Allah ["Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?] wasn't his doing and he did seem to express some doubt as to it's intended result.

However, Volf does seem intent on creating a sort of political pluralism. He does leave room for his being overly idealistic, and I do think he is. This is not a slam, but I'm a cynic. At this point, I'm hoping he's right but one glance at the headlines about material within our own borders doesn't give me great cause for celebration.

I'll leave it to later chapters for Volf's thesis to hopefully work it's magic.

A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU

Inspired by the Open Letter mentioned in the first section, the expressed goal of the drafters was not to create division, but to mark similarities. I will several verses (I think that is what they are called).

According to the Qur'an, "Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way." (AL 'Ankabut, 29:46). 

Taking up the claim that Muhammad follows the example of many heresy hunters, Benedict mentions the famous verse from the Qur'an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Al Baqarah, 2:256).

And the one that stuck out to me and it is according to the Open Letter, "God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle. Their utter conviction in God's Openness and that "There is none like Him." (Al Ikhlas, 112:4).

"If justice, mercy and knowledge are God's own attributes, then there is no room for divine capriciousness." (Volf, pg26). I will contend that capriciousness could be compatible with such things, provided it is redefined. But, that would be a redefinition, right?

LOVE OF GOD, LOVE OF NEIGHBOR

According to the Open Letter, Islam is at it's heart about love of God and love of neighbor. Though the Qur'an never explicitly states 'love for God,' a human attribute is applied to God. There is none like Him. The drafters of the Open Letter remind Muslims that their hearts must be completely devoted to God. According to the hadith, Muhammad stated, "None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself." The Common Word then goes on to bring about the two greatest commandments written to Muslims and Christs, love of God, love of neighbor.

They view it as an area of common ground, where Christians and Muslims can rejoice in similarities. This could be the bridge, Volf argues, to bring us closer together. As we found in the first post, Muslims and Christians make up a substantive percent of the world's population, and getting us to play nicely together in our respective sandboxes might be a worthy option. Even, if Volf concedes, it is overly idealistic.

I will conclude this section with a remark from Nostra Aetate, written by the Second Vatican Council:

"The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful, and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God."

CONCLUSION

I will confess that I didn't know this section existed anywhere. In fact, I know many Christians would say it is wrong, dangerous or even heresy to say such a thing. I know many/most Christians would never even think of such things.

I will also confess that I don't really know what to make of such things from the Second Vatican Council. I am looking forward to seeing what Volf writes and how he nuances much of his arguments. Thus far, I am unconvinced, but Volf's thoughts cannot be dismissed.

--NIck

No Forgiveness for Sins?

Quient:

There are some passages in Scripture that seem a bit disturbing when set in the context of the rest of Scripture. We are taught that God can and will forgive any and all sin and yet there are some passages that if read simplistically (or according to what some would call “the plain meaning of Scripture”) appear to teach that some sins cannot be forgiven.

 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit…and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame (Hebrews 6:4,6).

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:26).

The good news is that Biblical background and context make all the difference when it comes to understanding the meaning of Scripture. Victor Hamilton in the Handbook on the Pentateuch informs us of how another oddity in Scripture helps us resolve this one. “The Old Testament sacrificial system makes provisions only for accidental sins, not for those perpetrated deliberately” (245). However, when you look at what constitutes an “accidental sin” you soon realize it includes sins that could not possibly be done without knowledge. For instance, the following are included: stealing, lying about something someone lost, and lying about being innocent of another crime or to cover up another crime!

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "The Most Important Chapter in the Entire Bible"

Enns:

Don’t you hate blog posts that start like this, with such an exaggerated claim? So do I.
Oh well.

I could have said this post will make you rich and famous, but I’m holding back. Still, there is one chapter, in the New Testament, that I think is majorly huge–without it Christianity as we know does not exist. And here’s the chapter. Ready?

Acts 10.

Bet you didn’t see that coming. Bet you thought I was going to pick something about Jesus’ birth, crucifixion, or resurrection. But I didn’t, did I?

Without Acts 10, you don’t go to church on Sunday, have summer youth missions trips, hymnals, cathedrals, Vacation Bible School, or Contemporary Christian Music. Heck, since so much of western culture reflects nearly 2000 years of Christian influence (and dominance, for ill and good), you could say that without Acts 10, the west as we know it doesn’t exist.

How is t[h]at? Before Acts 10, followers of Jesus were almost exclusively (maybe entirely) Jewish. From Acts 10 on, Gentiles come pouring in as equal members. So, it’s a big deal.

In Acts 10, the Apostle Peter has a vision of a large sheet being lowered from heaven by its four corners. On that sheet were all sorts of animals considered unclean in Judaism. A voice told Peter to “kill and eat.” Even though Peter was hungry, he said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” Peter was a good Jew who stuck to ancient Jewish law about not eating “unclean” animals.

Peter was also a bit clueless at first about what this vision meant, but he would quickly understand that the ritually unclean animals in the vision symbolized Gentiles. At a time when maintaining ritual purity was a major concern (to distance Judaism from Roman culture), a vision like this was bound to signal a major transition.

No wonder Peter was confused. Why, after all, would God cancel out a law that God himself had commanded the ancient Israelites to keep?

For myself, I don't disagree. I think Peter's realization of the spreading and influence of the resurrection of the crucified God indeed provides a massive paradigm shift. Let's not forget, Peter is concerned about Jewish identify. For the option of salvation to be offered to a gentile, gifted by the Holy Spirit, must've been a massive shock.

Let's not forget, Paul took Peter down a notch in Galatians 2, having "opposed him to his face" and that in spite of this, Peter called all of Paul's letter's "scripture"  in 2 Peter 3 (which I've heard may not have been written by Peter; will investigate). Either way, Peter calling Paul's letters "scripture" seems quite invigorating, considering Paul's letters likely included Galatians.

It seems that Paul gets all the credit for spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, but Peter's conformation of Cornelius strikes me as something Paul would've loved.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Inerrancy"

Olson:

What does “inerrancy” actually do?

During this week’s brouhaha over possible semi-Pelagianism among Southern Baptist theologians (see the previous two posts and the comments here), one response has stuck in my mind and given me reason to worry. It worries me more than the possibility of semi-Pelagianism in the ranks of the theologians.

I confess that throughout this budding controversy I have occasionally broken a personal policy. Normally I do not go to other blogs to see what others are saying about the subjects we talk about here. But the policy isn’t iron clad; it’s not a rule, just a rule of thumb to protect my time. If I went to every blog someone recommends I read, I’d never get anything else done. So, normally, I only go if the blog is by someone I respect or whose opinions I consider influential and the subject is directly relevant to a matter I’m working on here.

This week I followed a link one commenter provided to a blog containing quotes by leading Baptist theologians about this issue of possible semi-Pelagianism among non-Calvinist Southern Baptist theologians. One of those quotes was from a Southern Baptist seminary president’s blog. (Don’t try to drag a name out of me or even mention possible ones; I’m not interested in personalities here. I’m talking about ideas.)

The well-known seminary president began this particular blog post by congratulating the Southern Baptist theologians he was about to criticize for at least believing in the inerrancy of the Bible. He said he was glad to be having this conversation with them (over grace and free will) because at least they and he agree on biblical inerrancy.

Two things caught my attention about that and made me worry. First, why didn’t the seminary president begin by saying at least he and his debate partners agree about Jesus Christ or salvation by grace? Why jump immediately and directly to the Bible—and a particular theory about the Bible?

For the rest, click  HERE.

--Nick

Jonathan Merritt, "Millennials Are More Independent, Divided on Culture Wars"

I like Merritt, even if I'm not convinced by some of his theological opinions. As I'm known, I love respectful perspective. 

A new study produced by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) confirms what we already knew to be true. A majority of Millennials believe that abortion is “morally wrong,” are torn on same sex issues, and a plurality consider themselves independent.

The study reports that 51% of Millennials believe that having an abortion is “morally wrong.” This falls in line with other studies in years past, which assert that rising generations are as pro-life, or perhaps more so, than their parents’ generation. Most young people, it seems, will seek to protect of unborn life as did many of their parents. Only 37% said they considered abortion “morally acceptable.”

But young people differ substantially from their parents on same sex issues. According to the study, Millennials are divided on same sex issues, with 59% favoring gays and lesbians to legally marry. Christians of similar age are also moving this direction according to a study conducted by PRRI in 2007, which showed 52% of young evangelicals favor some form of same sex union. I've written on why I think this is happening in many outlets, including this article in The Huffington Post.

Perhaps the most interesting finding in this study, however, is Millennials affinity for “independent” affiliation. A plurality (45%) self-identify as such. Young Christians seem to align with this trend as well. A 2001 study of young evangelicals by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press uncovered 55% were self-described Republicans. When the study was repeated in 2007, only 40% remained in that category. Interestingly, the 15% didn’t migrate to the Democratic party; only 5% did. The remaining 10% now describe themselves as “independents” or “unaffiliated.”

Last week at the Q conference—a prestigious gathering of more than 750 young Christian leaders in Washington DC—a participant survey found that 61% of participants claim they don’t affiliate with either the right or left.

So PRRI has uncovered what we already knew to be true. Young people—including those who claim the Christian faith are eschewing the American culture wars in significant ways. They remain conservative on issues such as abortion, but are rethinking or altogether shifting on other issues previously considered progressive. It seems Millennials are indeed less concerned about involvement in the partisan culture wars than some of their parents were.

If you’re like me—tired of the culture wars with it’s sour tone, divisive tactics, and blind partisanship—you welcome such data. It’s time we move beyond the framework of the religious right (and the religious left, for that matter). This generation will not perfect a model for political engagement, but we can make strides toward more Christ-like engagement in the American public square.


Merritt/Millennials


--Nick

Peter Enns, "You and I have a different God, I think"

Enns is always interesting.

I’ve been watching the Adam and evolution debates/discussions on line, in social media, and in print. I think I am beginning to see more clearly what accounts for the deeply held, visceral, differences of opinion about whether Adam was the first man or whether Adam is a story.

The reason for the differences is not simply that people have different theological systems or different ways of reading the Bible. A more fundamental difference lies at the root of these (and other) differences.

I think we have a different God.

Christians are supposed to think about God they way Jesus showed us to think about him.

That God does not hesitate to participate in the human drama, to encounter humanity within the limits of the human experience. That means that biblical writers wrote about the God they encountered as they understood him within their cultural limitations.

True encounter with God, expressed in truly human, cultural, terms.

That’s why I have no problem reading the Adam story as a story of origins like other stories of the ancient world, or understanding Paul’s take on Adam as an outworking of his Jewish world (where biblical texts are molded to fit an argument), and calling this kind of writing “God’s word.”

The Gospel teaches me that this kind of Bible reflects the character of God. This kind of Bible is what I have come to expect.

The Gospel does not teach me that it is a problem for God to enter into the human experience and allow that human experience to shape–from beginning to end–how the Bible behaves. The Gospel teaches me exactly the opposite.

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

When it comes to things like Adam and I hear how people explain their position, the question I ask myself now is “what kind of God are you presenting to me here when you say X….?” Is it

an incarnating God–Immanuel, God with us, or

a Platonic god–where you have to peel off the obscuring “down here” hindrances to get to the untainted “up there” god, with the Bible as an encoded inerrant guidebook to get you there.

I don’t like the platonic god. I don’t think Jesus did either.

You can tell something about the god people believe in by paying attention to how they talk about controversial issues of the Bible–like Adam.  Do you see a system-dispensing administrator who keeps his distance or “God with us”? If you keep your eyes open, my bet is that you will see one or the other coming through loud and clear.

Patheos/Enns

--Nick