Pyromaniacs

God's Perfect Law

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:21:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Law's Failure and Fulfillment," a sermon originally preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on Sunday evening, 1 March 1891.

HE law of God is perfect. You cannot add anything to it, nor take anything from it, without spoiling it. If you will read the Ten Commands and understand them in their spiritual meaning, you will find that they are far-reaching, and that they deal with every sin.

I noticed, some time ago, that a learned prelate said that he could not find any commandment against gambling. Where were his eyes? Is it not plainly written, "Thou shalt not covet"? What is gambling but covetousness in action? Most manifestly, the gambler desires his neighbour's goods, and this desire gives zest to the vice, which the law of God quite plainly condemns.

Depend upon it, there is nothing wrong but the law condemns it, and there is nothing right but the law approves it. The Decalogue is an absolutely perfect law.

Gambling vs. Faithful Stewardship

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

closed Wednesday's post with a list of four distinguishing marks drawn from a standard definition of "gambling." All four of these are true of every variety of gambling:

One, something valuable is put at risk. Two, something belonging to someone else is at stake as a prize. Three, an element of chance is involved in determining the outcome. And four, no new wealth is created in the process.

Now, let's devote a few posts to considering each of those features of gambling, one at a time. It is my contention that there's something in each one of them that conflicts with biblical principles. We'll take them in order, starting with the first:

Gambling places something valuable at risk for an illegitimate purpose. That violates the most basic biblical principles of wise and faithful stewardship.

Let me point out first of all that one of the fundamental principles of all biblical stewardship is given to us in the Tenth Commandment, Exodus 20:17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It's is a sin to covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. This is not a gray area.

Gambling is covetousness distilled to its very essence

I know people—and in all likelihood you do, too—who claim that they gamble only for entertainment or recreation; not out of greed or covetousness.

But if it's mere entertainment they seek, why not play a game without staking any money on the outcome? Every gambler to whom I have ever posed that question has given me the same answer: "To play a game with nothing at stake is not as much fun." The stake makes the game more "fun" or more "interesting."

As a matter of fact, one commenter made that very point: "Poker simply doesn't work without some money at stake . . . the money at stake adds to the enjoyment of the game." He said he plays for small amounts—so that "the financial losses are not enough to be any more than entertainment money, and the prize not enough to create greed."

Analyze that for a moment. Why would the element of gambling make a game more "fun?" There is only one reason: because the "fun" is derived not from the game itself but from the possibility of winning something that belongs to your neighbor. In other words, what makes gambling "fun" is pure covetousness.

Sorry to be blunt about it, but that is sin.

Note carefully: it's the principle of covetousness that makes that sort of "fun" sin, not the size of the stake. A Christian who thinks it's safe to cultivate covetous desires as long as the sum at stake is small has completely missed Paul's point in 1 Timothy 6:9-11:

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness.

Gambling involves an inordinate desire to get something from one's neighbor without a legitimate exchange. So it is a sin on those grounds, even if we said nothing further.

But There's More . . .

Gambling can be a sinful dereliction of the steward's duty for several other reasons as well. Note: I'm not arguing here that every act of gambling is necessarily tainted by all the following sins. But these are all major factors in the complex of evils that commonly accompany gambling. Anyone who practices gambling as a pattern of life is systematically tolerating and even cultivating the sin of covetousness in his or her heart. That person will of course be especially susceptible to many of the corresponding temptations, too:

Slothfulness. Get-rick-quick schemes are practically all foolish and immoral. Solomon wrote this in Proverbs 28:22: "A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, and does not consider that poverty will come upon him."
The promise of easy wealth is an overt appeal to slothful desire. Yet most gamblers freely acknowledge that the promise of gaining money quickly and with little effort is one of the major factors that adds to the "fun" of gaming. In other words, gambling fuels both covetousness and sloth.
Foolishness. Listen to Proverbs 22:16: "He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want." That's an interesting verse. Most of us will instinctively understand that it is sinful to oppress the poor in order to increase our riches. But the verse also says that you shouldn't just give your money to the rich. Who would give their money away to rich people? People who gamble in casinos are doing it all the time.
     Numerous studies have shown that poor people tend to spend a much larger proportion of their income on gambling than people in middle—or upper-income brackets. Gambling is a particular plague on lower-income people, primarily because of its illegitimate promise of getting rich quick. More than one study has demonstrated that the poor bet more than three times the amount wagered by persons in middle-income and upper-income brackets.
     Meanwhile, those who are licensed to sponsor lotteries and casino games never lose—they gain enormous wealth by taking money off the top, and by skewing the odds overwhelmingly in their favor.
     In other words, money won in state lotteries and other forms of gambling is money taken from the poor. And money lost in such wagers is money given to the rich. So both of the evils condemned in Proverbs 22:16 are fostered by the machinery of gambling. If you want to oppress the poor and give your money to the rich, there is no more systematic way to do it than through gambling.
Profligacy. Gambling is an expensive business. In 1974, statistics showed Americans were betting about $17 billion per year through legal channels. That was an astronomical sum, but it ballooned to $330 billion by 1992. By most estimates, Americans now wager more than $600 billion each year. That's more than we spend on food. It's seriously wasteful by any standard.
A lack of self-control. Furthermore, as the above statistics (and many others) indicate, gambling is seriously addictive. Research suggests that one in every ten gamblers does so compulsively. There are an estimated ten million gambling addicts in the United States alone. And the average compulsive gambler has debts exceeding $80,000. It is a bigger problem than alcoholism. And in areas where gambling is widespread—such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City—the suicide rate is three times higher than the national average.
Miscellaneous concerns. There is the stewardship of time. Gambling consumes people's leisure time with activities that are neither relaxing nor healthy for the body.
We could also talk about gambling's negative impact on philanthropy and charity for the poor.
And there's gambling's destructive consequences for marriage and the family; its detrimental effect on society, the crime rate, and the spiritual climate wherever gambling flourishes. Gambling has been shown to contribute to turmoil and physical abuse in the home, crime and violence in society, and all kinds of personal and psychological disorders in the person who is addicted to gambling.

The effects of gambling are virtually all bad. And no wonder. It is contrary to everything Scripture teaches about wise stewardship.

Grateful for the revealed Creator/creation distinction (Thanks from Genesis 1:1, part two)

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:42:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

[Sorry, the RefTagger program messes up the title. In this second Valerie-inspired series on thankfulness, we stay with Genesis 1:1.]

As I observed last time, when Moses writes "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," he is asserting that God's first creative act was producing the universe out of nothing. This truth is jam-packed with meaning. We shouldn't rush past it too hastily.

We know for a fact, then, that everything was created from nothing by Someone. That Someone — the infinite-personal God revealed in Scripture — thus stands apart from, above and beyond every created thing. Genesis 1:1 is Genesis 1:1; it is not 1:1b. It is not preceded by a verse detailing the origin of God.

Why not? Because it is the nature of God to be without origin. God alone is the Uncaused Cause. Think of it this way: there are two orders of things in the universe — caused, and uncaused. In the former column stretches a vast, almost endless list detailing every created thing. In the latter column, one entry alone: God. As Moses himself would later sing,

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God (Psalm 90:2)

That teaches us something vital, then, about all creation. It is all contingent. It all depends on something else for its origin. Nor is it surprising that it all continues to be contingent, depending on something else for its continued existence (cf. Colossians 1:17; I develop this theme more in this conference session). It is temporal, passing, evanescent (Psalm 102:25-26; Isaiah 34:4; 40:6-8).

But all those facts teach us corollary truths about the Creator. Unlike creation, He is unconditioned and non-contingent, depending on nothing for His being nor continuance (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 90:2; 102:27; John 8:58; Hebrews 13:8). He is supreme above all, in every sense.

All these "theological" truths bear very practical fruit. They tell me verities I desperately need to know, or I literally do not know the first thing necessary to make sense of Life, the Universe, much less All That.

I should not live for any created thing. All things are on the same plane, with a few variations: money, pleasure-in-things/experiences, fame, influence. All things are just things, and all things are temporary, contingent, secondary (at best). No created thing is sufficiently weighty, stable, significant, nor worthy to give ultimate meaning nor purpose. All will pass away, as will all who live for them (1 John 2:16-17a).
I should live for the Creator. Meaning and significance are not to be located in the effects, but in the Cause; not in the tributaries, but in the fountainhead. I should hold Him chief in my mind from my youth (Ecclesiastes 12:1), because I will only learn my design from my Designer. Neglect that, and I will live a meaningless, trivial, wasted life, no matter what I do.
I should not live in fear of any created thing. None is ultimate. No matter how fierce, powerful, nor forceful, there is One who transcends them. Like me, they are contingent. Like me, they are limited. Like me, they can be bested. What's more, the worst they can do to me is kill me.
I should live in fear of the Creator. The worst a creature can do is kill me, but the Creator can do far worse to me (Matthew 10:28). Unlike creatures, the Creator is unconditioned, relentless, unlimited, incapable of being bested. The buck always stops with Him. (Besides, whether a creature kills me or not is the Creator's call, anyway.)
In sum, the center of my life must be the knowledge, worship and service of the Creator, not the creature. Miss that, and I miss life, period: I am fatally off-target as to the meaning of myself, of my world, and of others. I'm like someone who thinks The Lord of the Rings is all about this forgetful innkeeper named Butterbur, or that A Christmas Carol centers around the tale of a woman named Fezziwig, married to a generous business owner. These are minor, peripheral characters — focus on them, and I've missed the whole story. Focus on creation rather than Creator, and I've missed the whole story, and far more beside.

To this day, vast millions and even billions have "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever" (Romans 1:25). Of course I mean the animists, of course I mean the polytheists and the idolaters — but no less do I mean the youth-worshipers, the health-worshipers, the trend-worshipers, the image-worshipers, and the sex-worshipers; the Greens, the Reds; the eco-fascists and the evo-fascists.

And so, from Genesis 1:1, I thank God for the stark and clear revelation of the Creator/creature distinction. In that light alone can I make sense of life, and find my place by finding His face.

Thus we can —

Know that the LORD, he is God!
It is he who made us, and we are his;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture (Psalm 100:3)

Thank God!

Oh, and one more thing . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:23:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

he following is adapted from comments I originally posted in other forums, but since what I have to say below is germane to the large subject under discussion, I've distilled it here and am posting it so that it will be permanently attached to this thread. Like my remarks in the immediately preceding post, this one answers several e-mails that have been sent to me directly, and a few posts that have appeared other forums:

The distinctions I made in the "definitions" post are not ideas I made up. And they are not as ambiguous as a few argumentative souls seem to want to pretend. What I have attempted to give is essentially a simple summary of the legal definition of gambling.

Please allow me first of all to try to cut through a lot of niggling questions that have been put to me about whether investing in the stock market is really any different from "gambling": The distinction I have made between gambling and investing in stocks is recognized by the laws of every state in the union. Investing in stocks is not a form of "gambling." That's what the law says, not merely how I "feel" about the question. In the preceding post I gave several sources that explain in careful detail why this is a valid distinction. Notice that the articles at the links I gave all expand on pretty much the very same arguments I made in the post itself. I'm not inventing these arguments as I go.

Unfortunately, I simply can't take time to respond individually to every dissenting "well, it seems to me . . ."-style argument. So if someone wants to try to make a cogent argument that investing in stocks is really exactly the same thing as gambling after all, please link to a credible source where someone who is knowledgeable about economics and the law agrees with and supports that position.

As John Calvin would say, Good luck.

Incidentally, the argument (made by more than one person who e-mailed me) that there are always losers whose losses correspond to the gains of every winner in the stock market is essentially a jejune argument based on the long-discredited dogma of popular socialism. It simply is not true, and the economic growth in the United States since World War II seems rather convincing proof that the socialist argument holds no water whatsoever.

The comments in my in-box today make it clear that there are a lot of people who have never really thought through the issue of gambling but have strong feelings about "legalism" and whatnot. In many cases, it seems, they are prepared to offer a kneejerk denial to any suggestion that this or that questionable vice or popular "leisure" activity is inherently sinful. One of my more prolific critics basically admitted that he was making up arguments on the fly, but he wanted me to help him think out loud. Sorry. That's not what we are doing here.

My plea is simple: If you're just spoiling for a fight about some argument you think I am going to make—or if you have already made up your mind (no matter what) that gambling is OK and you are going to try to deconstruct any and every argument against it—please at least let me finish my whole argument first. I would also encourage you to read carefully and seriously think through what I'm saying before you react.

Finally, (for those who predictably demand that every argument START with biblical proof-texts) please notice that I'm making a rather systematic argument, and it's not nearly finished yet.

I'm sorry there is no easy biblical proof-text about gambling. Often the question of whether something is sinful or not has to be thoroughly considered as a matter of biblical principle rather than instantly dismissed with a Scripture reference. In such cases, it is usually necessary to be even more careful in defining and thinking through the foundational questions step by step.

But I acknowledged all of that at the very outset, and I have already said where I am going in the discussion (i.e., "Each of the essential characteristics of gambling violates one or more biblical principles. In the next post in this series, we'll begin to see why"). So comments e-mailed to me from lurkers who say things like "You haven't really given us anything biblical yet"—frankly are not particularly helpful.

The definitions I have given are essential groundwork for showing why gambling violates certain biblical principles. I actually said so in the post itself.

After I'm done, you can scold me if you think my argument isn't biblical. But to throw out that objection when I've barely finished defining terms isn't really a helpful approach to an issue like this one.

While I'm at it, here's a special note for some particularly mischievous first-time commenters: Please try to be serious if you comment. I'm really not looking for off-the-cuff arguments from every penny-ante poker aficionado who might be lurking. These are meant to be serious posts about a serious problem with serious ramifications in our society, and the feedback I'm most interested in is from church leaders who are serious about considering a tough subject carefully.

Answering a couple of objections

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:03:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

et me respond to some feedback that appeared in a different forum. I don't participate in the other forum, but the person who wrote this e-mailed it to me and invited me to respond. I'm posting my response here, because it might clear up some confusion other people have, too.

He writes,

I would disagree with him on this one [no losers in stock trading] to a certain extent. If I buy a stock at $10/share, and the value goes up to $20/share, ON PAPER it appears that ALL investors have earned money . . .BUT, that's only on paper.

That's simply untrue. It completely misrepresents how the stock market works. (See the links below.) Buying stock is an actual investment in a company. When stock value goes up, real jobs are created, company assets increase, and the potential for future profits is also increased. The increased wealth is not merely "on paper."

He further says,

If I decide to sell that stock, SOMEBODY has to fork out that extra money in order to purchase for $20 what I bought for $10. So, I am not sure if his attempt to show that the stock market has NO losers is air-tight. I seem to recall at the end of each stock trading day, there is always a report of the winners and LOSERS."

You are turning language on its head and unnecessarily clouding the whole issue. The suggestion that someone who invests in stock at a higher price has "lost" money is absurd. Apply that claim to the buying and selling of real estate and you'll see why it simply doesn't work.

And the "winners" and "losers" in the stock market report are stocks whose value rose (winners) or fell (losers). What I said was not an "attempt to show that the stock market has NO losers." And nowhere did I say there are "no losers in stock trading."

What I said was, "There are no losers when a stock gains value." The point is that in the stock market, the winners' gains do not come at the losers' expense. It's not really a complex point, but it is a significant one. In fact, it touches on the central point of my whole argument, so please don't let it get buried under a mass of unnecessary confusion.

Anyone tempted to comment further in this vein ought to do a little reading about the stock market and how it works. Many fine articles are easily available on line that show why investing in stocks is not a form of "gambling." See for example:

"The Five Biggest Stock Market Myths," from Investopedia
"Chapter 1: Replacing Stock Market Myths," from Five-Minute Investing
"Stock Market Investing Odds: The Odds Are in Your Favor!," from greekshares.com

And here's an article that graphically illustrates the difference between investing in stocks and betting on the stock market: Just Plain Crazy, by Charles Jaffe, The Investor Direct

A Glutton's gratitude

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:01:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

I think I'm ashamed to tell you that I am grateful that I struggle with my weight problem rather than whether or not my children will eat well each day. [Deu 6:10-12] I'm grateful for my moral dilemmas rather than the fundamental dilemma of subsistance.

Bless us, oh Lord, and these thy gifts, which we receive from thy Bounty, in Christ's name. Amen.

Gambling: Some Definitions and Distinctions

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

This is part 2 of a series that started here. Bear in mind that all of this series was written more than 4 years before any of these comments. (You guys are so predictable!)

To gamble is to wager on a contest or to play at a game of chance for stakes. When you gamble, you are risking money (or something else of value) on the outcome of something that involves an element of chance, uncertainty, or hazard—for the possibility of winning something someone else has put at stake.

A stake is a prize one person stands to gain through the loss of others.

Simple contest prizes, such as free sweepstakes and door prizes, do not involve gambling if no fee is charged for entry into the contest. Sweepstakes contests sponsored for advertising purposes are paid for by the sponsor. The winner's prize is not financed by the loss of other contestants. Therefore it is not gambling. Nothing is put at stake by the contestants in such events.

Likewise, investing in the stock market is not "gambling," regardless of how much risk is involved. If a stock gains value, all investors earn money. The gains of one investor are not financed by the losses of others. In other words, there are no losers when a stock gains value. When the stock value increases, the economic "pie" grows.

By contrast the size of the economic pie in a gambling contest is fixed. The prize is a pool of money contributed by the players. A casino may take a percentage of that pie off the top, but otherwise, the size of the pie is fixed by the aggregate total of the players' contributions.

Similarly, a farmer who plants seed hoping to yield a crop takes a calculated risk. (If weather or disease destroys the crop, he could lose all he has invested in the crop.) That risk is not, technically, a "gamble," because if the investment pays off, no one loses. Real wealth has been created, unlike in gambling, where no wealth is ever actually created.

In gambling, existing wealth merely changes hands. In other words, one person's gain always comes at the price of hurt caused to others. That is the reason an immoral principle underlies all gambling. (We'll probe this point more carefully before the end of this series.)

One more misconception is worth trying to clear up: You'll often hear someone compare the insurance business to gambling. But although buying and selling insurance involves risk, it is not the moral equivalent of gambling. Assuming risk per se is not gambling. As we know, life is full of risk, and if the act of taking a risk were inherently the same as gambling, you could say that we all gamble every day.

In fact, that is precisely what some who advocate gambling do say. They point out that you take a risk every time you get in an airplane or ride in a car—or walk across the street. You would also face some risk even if all you did was stay in bed trying to avoid risk. Therefore, they say, life itself is a gamble.

But all of that is based on a faulty understanding of what gambling is. Look again at our definitions: To gamble is to play a game of chance for stakes. And a stake is a prize that is obtained at another gambler's expense. Remember: in gambling, whatever one person wins is lost by another.

Furthermore, in gambling, the risk is artificial. It is risk that is created by a game of chance. And the sole purpose for assuming this risk is to try to gain something at someone else's expense.

Now, notice this: all gambling involves four elements: One, something valuable is put at risk. Two, something belonging to someone else is at stake as a prize. Three, an element of chance is involved in determining the outcome. And four, no new wealth is created in the process.

And those four characteristics of gambling are the very reasons gambling is wrong. Each of the essential characteristics of gambling, when combined with the other three, violates one or more biblical principles. In the next post in this series, we'll begin to see why.

Comedy Tragedy of Errors

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:33:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

Warning: This is a long story, and it doesn't even have an ending yet. Settle in.

ongtime readers may recall that I managed to destroy my main desktop PC in May of 2007 when I used a vacuum cleaner hose to get dust out of its case without turning it off first.

Based on much welcome advice from you, dear readers, I replaced that clunker with an iMac and I haven't looked back. In the intervening months, I've become one of Apple's best customers, replacing Darlene's laptop, my laptop at the office, my home network server, and even the network router with Apple hardware. Exclusively. The only piece of HP equipment left in the house is the printer (and it's a workhorse).

After two-and-a-half years, however, that original iMac has become maddeningly sluggish. Well, in all honesty, it's the Windows virtual machine I run on the iMac that I've been having the most trouble with. It used to be lightning-fast. Now it takes almost 15 minutes to load completely. Once it loads, it runs fine, but when it's running, it's useless to try to run anything else other than small utilities on the iMac.

I began to notice this problem in March, immediately after the Foxmarks (bookmark-synchronization software) add-on was renamed to Xmarks and came out with a major new version. At first I thought it was a glitch in Xmarks—but at the time it was only mildly annoying, so rather than uninstall Xmarks completely, I waited for another Xmarks update and hoped that would fix my computer's performance problems. It didn't. In fact, the sluggishness grew ten times worse in June when Firefox came out with their 3.5 update. And then last month when VMWare updated to 3.0, the loading of my VM became slow as molasses in winter.

I tried everything; downsizing the VM; eliminating VMWare's "snapshots" (which are automatic backups of the Windows machine); and running every registry-fixer and optimization program available for Windows. On the Mac side I freed up as much hard-disk space as possible; cleaned the caches; repaired file permissions; and ran every maintenance script and optimization routine I could find.

So I'm pretty sure the real problem is that I've maxed out and overtaxed the 2 gigs of RAM that came with the iMac. I suspect the main culprits are a flood of Windows security patches, combined with the Firefox 3.5+ "upgrades" (which have also made Firefox take forever to load and shut down). The reason I concluded I need more RAM is that the only computer giving me problems is that original iMac, with 2 gigs of RAM. Both my laptop and the Mac Mini upstairs (the hub of my home network, used nearly full time by other people in my household) each have 4 gigs of RAM, and they still run everything like a breeze.

So at the beginning of October I decided to order a new iMac. Apple was running a promo with BarclayCards, so that if you signed up for a BarclayCard and ordered a Mac straightaway, you could charge the computer and have a year to pay it off interest-free. That payment plan worked for me, so I was set.

Of course, I knew the rumors that Apple was preparing a new generation of iMacs, so I had to wait until Apple announced their new machines. They finally did so on October 20, and I ordered my new iMac that very day. With 8 gigs of RAM. And the monster 27-inch monitor.

After I ordered the machine, however, I learned the computer I wanted wouldn't ship until "November." They didn't say whether that meant November 1 or mid-November. I took it gracefully as an opportunity to learn patience.

On November 12, I finally got a notice by e-mail that the new computer had shipped. It had a Fedex tracking number, and when I checked it, it said the computer would be shipping from China, but the shipment had just missed the Friday cutoff, so it was still in Shanghai.

I watched the tracking number for several days as the computer made its way to Anchorage, from there to Memphis, and from there to Santa Clarita. Don't ask me to explain the circuitous route. I was just happy to see it making progress. In my head, I was expecting a Wednesday delivery but hoping for Tuesday. I was therefore thrilled when it was delivered on Monday—yesterday.

Well, not technically "delivered." The Fedex guy mistakenly took it to my next-door neighbor (even though it was correctly addressed), and when the neighbor didn't answer the door, he left it on the neighbor's front porch!

Fortunately, I have honest neighbors, and the neighbor, emerging from the shower, came to see why his doorbell had been rung and discovered this heavy box addressed to me. He was understandably irritated. He came over and rang the doorbell about five times in rapid succession. Fortunately for all, I was home (I'm having a relapse of the flu). He explained that Fedex had left this heavy box on his porch and it wasn't even for him, plus it was too heavy for him to carry up the steep incline to my house (We're on a hill.) Of course, I was thrilled and told him I'd be over immediately to get my computer. I wasn't even annoyed at the Fedex guy; I was just glad the computer had arrived early, and on a day when I was home and with enough time to get it out and set it up. It all seemed so wonderfully providential! The box was in pristine condition, without so much as a scratch after the long journey from Shanghai.

So I lugged the box over from the neighbors' and happily began unpacking it. Mac designs are wonderful—right down to the way products are packaged. One of the true delights in this otherwise hazy postmodern society is unpacking a fresh piece of Apple hardware.

And everyone knows Macs "can do it all, right out of the box," right? So I was stoked with expectation and delight.

The new iMacs have an edge-to-edge glass screen, and they come with an ingenious sticky-but-not-too-sticky protective film. The last thing I did was peel off that plastic film and step back to admire the 27-inch monitor.

That's when I saw that the glass was broken. Not chipped or scratched, but the whole lower left corner of the screen was shattered. It must have been broken before the film was applied and the machine boxed up, because there was no damage to the box and no sign of impact on the protective film. Some assembly-line inspector in Shanghai seems to have missed this ginormous divot in the glass screen.

So I groaned. (Darlene says it was more like a deep growl of profound agony: "Arrgh!") Then I called Apple support.

I have to say Apple's support people are among the most polite and pleasant customer-relations people in the world. And I ought to know; I talked to at least seven of them in an hour-and-a-half on that first phone call. I'm not sure why I needed to be transferred so many times, but obviously, they needed to get some kind of verification that the computer arrived DOA and that I didn't drop it while lugging it up the hill from my neighbor's.

After a recorded intro, the first live rep I spoke to asked me what the issue was, and then immediately transferred me to a representative who asked me all the numerical data about the original order. Then that guy transferred me to someone asked a list of detailed questions about the damage. He asked me to hold while he connected me with someone who could authorize the return. After that, I was transferred to someone who ordered a replacement computer; and then I talked to a completely different guy who made the arrangements for me to return the damaged computer. There may have been a couple of other people along the way; I lost track. I suppose that's an efficient system, but they actually put you on hold to make the transfer, and the on-hold times between reps were each at least 5 minutes. Furthermore (if I can say this kindly) whoever chooses the holding music for Apple has really lousy taste. It was after noon before I got off the phone, and I had a headache.

But anyway, everything was taken care of in one long phone call—except for one detail. Just before I hung up, the rep I was talking to explained that a hold would be put on my replacement computer until I shipped the damaged one back.

So I packed it up and shipped it back right away. Never even plugged it in and turned it on.

After dropping it off at the local Fedex Kinko's, I rang Apple support again and gave them the tracking number so that they would be able to release my replacement. That's when they told me the replacement isn't scheduled to ship until December. The rep was as polite as all the others, but assured me that lots of people have ordered these computers, and everyone is having to wait. There was simply no way to expedite my replacement computer.

Of course, the clock is already ticking on my one-year no-interest deal with BarclayCards, and by the time I actually receive the computer, one-sixth of that year-of-grace will be gone already. In fact, if I stick to the payment schedule I originally made, and if the computer takes as long to deliver as they are saying it might, I'll have made three of eleven payments before I even see the computer.

Meanwhile, I've been reading the early rumors and reviews of the new iMacs. The thought occurred to me that perhaps this is all a providential opportunity to cancel my order, save some headaches, and wait until Apple gets some stuff sorted out. I could probably make do with my laptop alone for a few months.

So I'm interested in your feedback, especially if you are an IT-support type who has had experience with the new iMacs. Any advice? Am I going to think all this hassle was worth it when I finally get the new iMac, or is this one of those "upgrades" I'm going to regret for a long time?

Thanks for the universe (Thanks from Genesis 1:1, part one)

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:32:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

[Not sure why the title reformatted itself; nothing I did. I think it's the RefTagger program, that automatically identifies all Bible references - even in titles, evidently.]

Preface. It seems as if, with each passing year, I see more significance in Genesis 1—3 generally, and Genesis 1:1 specifically. It has been well said that anyone who accepts Genesis 1:1 as true is prepared to understand and believe the rest of the Bible. Deny it, and all falls apart.

So when I introduced this Valerie-inspired series on thankfulness, my mind turned first to Genesis 1:1. I just may not have to go anywhere else, by Thursday the 26th (Thanksgiving Day in America).

Basic assumptions. Genesis 1:1 is probably the best-known verse in the Bible: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For this series, I am going to assume without debate that this is the sense of the verse:

Genesis 1:1 points to the first and only beginning of all things
Genesis 1:1 is not a summary-statement nor a title
Genesis 1:1 relates God's first act, followed immediately by the seven days narrated in 1:2—2:4
Genesis 1:1 describes ex nihilo creation

Today's item for thanks. The Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" form a merism. In a merism, one names two poles, thereby including everything in-between. For instance "young and old" means all ages. Other merisms might include "root and branch," "here and there," and "night and day."

Thus in Genesis 1:1, "the heavens and the earth" means the universe (cf. Genesis 2:4; 14:19; Psalm 69:34; 148:13, etc.). In the beginning, this one true and living God created the universe in an unformed and undeveloped state, then set about to order and define it.

This verse, then, asserts that one God is responsible for the creation of all things. There is no created thing that did not come from His hand; all created things trace their origin to that one, original burst of command. The infinite-personal God of Scripture had conceived of a "plan of the ages," which He made in Christ (Ephesians 3:11, Greek), and now He began its execution with the creation of everything from nothing.

What this means, then, is that we live in a universe, not a multiverse. There are not many realities competing with each other, vying for dominance. It is one universe, from the hand of one God. It is all defined and ruled over by Him.

Ironically, atheists — who have made "doing Science" their sacrament — depend on this truth, even as they deny it. Repetition only has meaning in a universe. Generalization from particulars only has meaning in a universe. If we can't proceed from the premise that everything is united by a common origin, we can neither predict nor generalize. In that existence, even if a series played out identically a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times, we would have no basis for predicting that it would proceed the same the next time. And even if it proceeded identically with our test subjects, no matter how large the sample, we could never justifiably assert that it would proceed the same with any untested subject.

Put it another way. Last Thanksgiving, you fed your family untainted, normal turkey (or pizza). They lived and thrived. How do you know that, if you feed them untainted, normal turkey this year, they won't die, or explode, or burst into flames because of it? How do you know that, when you poke your fork into some pumpkin pie, your house won't fly out into space as a result? How do you know that, when you click in the "Leave your comment" box, so that you can argue with me, your face won't be torn off and your veins filled with acid as a result? In fact, how could you even form an argument, attempting to arrange reasons in any logical or compelling form, with any thought that shapes on a page would even appear the same to each viewer, and convey meaning to rational readers?

Because of Genesis 1:1.

So there's the irony of the atheist. If Genesis 1:1 were not true, he could never deny that Genesis 1:1 is true.

So back to us. As you live your life in this one universe, with its designed predictability and order; and as you pursue your life confident that it is even possible to find meaning and live meaningfully — thank God for it. Thank Him for making a universe for you to live in. Thank Him that, because of Him, even the bare concepts of meaning and purpose and cohesion are not only intelligible and possible, but discoverable.

Discoverable, that is, if we proceed on the premise that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Which, thank God, we can.

Is Gambling OK? Don't Bet on It

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

I posted this series of articles on the original Pulpit blog several years ago and it generated a lot of discussion. Somehow in the many URL-changes and format redesigns over there, these articles went missing from the Pulpit archives, so I am recreating the series here at PyroManiacs. Be advised: If you are someone who loves gambling and are convinced there's no principle of Scripture that forbids it, you might want to wait until the series is complete before posting an angry note of disagreement. No pun intended, but I'll bet I'm going to anticipate and answer most of your arguments before the series is over.

Here is a list of all the posts in the series:

While we're on the subject, see this.

s it a sin to gamble? There's not an easy or instantly-obvious prooftext answer to that question. If you are looking for a "Thus saith the Lord: Thou shalt not gamble," you won't find it anywhere. Nothing expressly forbids gambling anywhere in Scripture.

Does that automatically put gambling into the realm of adiaphora, or indifferent matters? I don't think so. I would argue that gambling is a sin, full stop.

A Sin? Are you Serious? Why Would Anyone Believe that in this Enlightened Age?

Here are three reasons that instantly come to mind:

The absence of a single commandment or proof-text against gambling ultimately proves nothing.There are lots of things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible that we would probably agree are clearly sinful.
There isn't anything in Scripture that forbids arson, for example. But we know arson is wrong because it violates other biblical principles. It's a violation of the commandment in Leviticus 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
As a matter of fact, even thinking about burning down your neighbor's property violates Zechariah 8:17: "Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour . . . [for] these are things that I hate, saith the Lord." So I don't think anyone would seriously argue that arson is OK, just because it isn't named in the Bible as a sin. Ditto with recreational drug use, graffiti-vandalism, and a host of other societal evils.
Gambling is inconsistent with biblical virtue. It is fueled by—and it fuels—covetousness, greed, and materialism. It is associated with crime, vice and corruption, so that wherever gambling exists, crime rates rise. And it is contrary to the biblical work ethic, because it is an attempt to gain wealth without working for it.
Our possessions are not our own to squander. They are given to us as a stewardship, and we will be accountable to God for how we use them. To put God-given resources at risk is to fail in the faithfulness required of stewards.

I once gave that answer to a college student who asked me about gambling in a public Q&A session in GraceLife. He stayed at the microphone while I gave my answer, and I could see he was not satisfied with it. When I finished, he asked if he could respond.

"By all means," I told him. "If that doesn't answer your question, ask a follow-up, and I'll expand on my answer.

Can't You Make a Better Case Than That?

"Well," he said, "I still don't think you have shown that gambling is a sin. Let me reply to your arguments one by one.

"First," he said, "take the example of arson. It is wrong to burn down your neighbor's field or his house only when there is no mutual consent. But suppose he wanted your help burning his field because he wanted to clear the land. Then it would not be a sin for you to set fire to his property.

"As a matter of fact," he continued, "My neighbors had an abandoned building they were going to demolish for a new commercial development. So they allowed some fire department trainees to set fire to the building and practice putting it out. It wasn't a sin for the rookie fireman to set fire to that house, because the owner had given his consent.

"And gambling is always by mutual consent," he said. So it cannot be wrong done against your neighbor, because you have his concurrence before the game of chance begins."

He wasn't finished.

"Second," he said, "gambling isn't necessarily motivated only by covetousness and greed. I like to gamble for recreation and sheer entertainment."

Looking at me, he asked, "What is your favorite form of entertainment?"

"I like to take my sons to a baseball game," I said.

"Fine," he answered. "If you take your family to a baseball game, by the time you bought tickets, paid for parking, and got some food or drinks, you would probably have spent $100 to $150. All that money to watch an athletic contest! You get nothing tangible for your money except maybe a Coke and a large pretzel. The whole game is over in two and a half hours, and you go back home, with nothing to show for the money you spent. It is just entertainment; sheer recreation.

"Now, the form of recreation I prefer is gambling. I can take the same $100 and go to a casino, where I might spend the entire evening playing Blackjack. I get all the Cokes and pretzels I want for free. And if I have a good night, I can play for four or five hours with my $100—twice as long as you spent at your two-and-a-half-hour ball game.

"Furthermore," he said, "I might win, and then I will go home with even more money than I came with. But I don't do it because of greed. I do it because that is what I enjoy, just like you enjoy baseball."

I started to respond, but he held up a finger to signal that he wasn't through yet.

"Now," he said, "Let's talk about the stewardship issue. You went to an athletic event and have nothing permanent to show for the money you spent. I might have more money coming out than I had going into the casino.

"But even if I lose," he said, "I am a disciplined loser, and I always set a specific amount I am willing to lose—never more than about 100 dollars. And if I lose that much, I quit and walk away. That is still less money than you spent on your baseball outing, and it usually buys me several hours of exciting entertainment. Sometimes I even win, so I can even make money through my form of entertainment. Now I ask you, which is better stewardship?"

I took a deep breath and pondered the best way to reply.

But before I could answer, he continued. "There are risks involved in gambling," he said. "But the farmer who spends money to buy seed and plant a field also takes a huge gamble every year. If the weather destroys his crop, he will lose far more than I ever risk. Risk is a normal part of all our lives."

And then he asked me, "Do you have any of your retirement savings in mutual funds?" As a matter of fact, I do, so I acknowledged that fact.

"Well," he said, "you are taking a risk with that money. You yourself are gambling that the market will rise. What if it goes down? You will lose money. So you are gambling that it will go up. Meanwhile, you have put your savings at risk. How in the world can you tell me you think gambling is sinful? You aren't even practicing what you preach. If it is wrong to gamble, it is wrong for you to put your retirement savings in the stock market. And if it is unwise stewardship for me to gamble at cards, then it is also bad stewardship for you to invest money in mutual funds.

"And finally," he said, "My enjoyment of gambling has got nothing to do with my work ethic. In addition to my student class load, I work a full time job during the week and make good money. For me to spend $100 on Friday night at the casino is no more a reflection on my work ethic than for you to spend $150 on Friday evening at a baseball game.

"Gambling is just entertainment for me, and unless you are prepared to argue that all forms of entertainment are sinful, give me better arguments to show that gambling violates the Bible's moral standards, or show me where the Bible says gambling is a sin, I am going to keep visiting the casino."

That's a pretty thorough off-the-cuff reply to my off the-cuff answer to his original question, isn't it? It was obvious that he had spent a great deal of time thinking through these issues. He had heard the standard arguments, and he believed he could answer them all.

Well, OK. Let's Think This Through More Carefully . . .

By then, unfortunately, we were running short on time, and I only had enough time left to give him a quick reply.

I told him first of all that I still believe a sinister principle underlies all gambling, and it is this: for every winner, there are losers. And the winners' gains come at the losers' expense. There is no other way to gain money through gambling. When you win, you are taking that which belongs to another. The winners' profit always comes directly from the losers' pocket. There's something more sinister about that than merely winning an athletic competition, which involves no material loss for the loser.

In other words, gambling is the moral equivalent of stealing. His argument about mutual consent between the players didn't seem to make it OK, because in real life many gambling losses lead to ruin for the loser. Prior consent doesn't eliminate the evil in that.

I also told him I did not completely buy his rationale that gambling might be just a form of pure entertainment—something better by which to pass the time than watching television. While the argument has some appeal at first glance, I pointed out that if there is an immoral principle that underlies all gambling—if gambling per se violates any clear principle of Scripture—then it is wrong on any grounds. To say that you gamble only for entertainment is not really a good defense against the argument that gambling is rooted in greed and covetousness.

For example, what if someone tried to claim it was OK to fornicate because he was doing it only as a form of entertainment? My point was this: if it's wrong to gamble on matters of biblical principle, then it is wrong to gamble in any circumstance, and it is wrong to gamble in any amount. If there are principles that make gambling a sinful activity, then it is wrong to gamble for "entertainment," and it is wrong whether you are gambling 50 cents or gambling your whole paycheck.

I regretted that we had to end our Q&A session at that point. He went away unsatisfied with my reply, and so did I.

While I still felt all my arguments were biblically sound, I didn't feel I had done enough to highlight the real heart of the matter. And that prompted me to give more thought to the issue of gambling so that I would be better prepared to give an answer if the question ever came up again.

Since then, I have thought through the issues more carefully than ever. I've considered the arguments further. I've taken an even closer look at the biblical data. And I hasten to say that I am even more convinced than ever that gambling is a sinful activity. It is not a valid form of entertainment, and it is not a harmless matter of indifference. It violates a number of biblical principles and therefore ought to be avoided in all its forms.

Hold on; I'm Not Finished Yet

A blog is a great medium for exploring such a questions in careful detail. So in a couple of follow-up posts, I plan to give you a series of biblical arguments showing in further detail exactly why I still believe gambling is a sin.

Stay tuned for more . . .

On Keeping in Step with the Zeitgeist

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:04:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt comes from a sermon titled "To the Saddest of the Sad," first published in June of 1888.

often wonder what those preachers do who feel called to make up their message as they go on; for if they fail, their failure must be attributed in great measure to their want of ability to make up a moving tale.

They have to spread their sails to the breeze of the age, and to pick up a gospel that comes floating down to them on the stream of time, altering every week in the year; and they must have an endless task to catch this new idea, or, as they put it, to keep abreast of the age. Unless, indeed, like chameleons, they have a natural aptitude to change colour, they must have a worrying time of it, and a horrible amount of shifting to get through. When they have done their best to preach this gospel of their own, then they are accountable for having made that gospel. For every bit of its teaching they are accountable, because they were the manufacturers of it, and it came forth from their foundry, bearing their stamp.

If they take this yoke upon them, and so refuse to learn of Christ, they will find no rest to their souls. To me the preaching of the Lord's own gospel is a joy and a privilege; for notwithstanding that concern for your souls loads me with the burden of the Lord, it is his burden, and not one which I have selected for myself. I often feel on a Sabbath night when I go home weary: "I know that I have preached what I believe to be God's gospel." I have not said anything—I have not intended to say anything that was my own.

Thanks a lot

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:37:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

So in light of Dan's suggestion, here's my first post on being thankful, which is really written by my wife, who is the greatest blogger never once to blog. I'll take the "as told to" credit.

For those who don't follow me on Twitter or FB, my kids have been sick all week -- the big one since Saturday, and the little one since about Wednesday after AWANA. Same stuff. Blech. And of course Mrs. Cent and I are now not feeling so hot ourselves, but I'm optmistic it's just the lack of sleep and not the other stuff.

But last night my wife said to me, "I'm grateful that our kids are sick." And since I am the Drunken Master®, she can't trick me like that, so I said, "Tell me more."

"I'm in there, cleaning [graphic detail omitted], and every time there's a [graphic detail omitted], I know that the child is alive, and that God has given this child to me as a gift, and that He knows what's best for both of us. And I'm glad I can do something about this which the child understands. So I'm grateful."

Many of you do not have a spouse like this (she does not have a spouse like this), so you may admire her from a distance.

Thinking about thanking

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:14:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

When I told my dear wife I lacked specific inspiration for today's post, Valerie suggested I write about reasons to be thankful. Since "a wise man listens to advice" (Proverbs 12:15), and since I do want to be a wise man, and since some of the best advice I ever get comes from Valerie....

Lord knows we have enough reasons for being unhappy, on the horizontal plane. Whether we're talking about American politics (don't get me started), or evangelicalism in general, or even some trends within the Reformed community... there are solid reasons for concern, grief, even anger.

However, I don't think it's being-in-denial to remind ourselves that believers, on the worst days of our lives, have more to be thankful for than the richest lost soul has on the best day of his life.

Plus, as I once developed at some length, ingratitude and discontentment create massive spiritual vulnerability.

What is the best antidote? Surely it is knowledge and understanding of, and robust thankfulness for, all God is in Himself, and all God is to us through Christ, as brought home by His Spirit applying His word.

So I mean to start a little series of posts along those themes, at least leading up to Thanksgiving. I'll even be corny enough to invite Phil and Frank to throw in, if they're so moved.

Just to prime the pump, I'll let you know where I'm thinking of starting, next time: Genesis 1:1.

Worthless

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:00:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

When Paul said this to Titus:

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

I think he knew something about the Blogosphere.

Harvey Cox's breathless announcement: Fundamentalism (i.e. Christian faith) is doomed!!!

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:43:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

[Normally, triple-exclamation-points would be a stylistic faux pas... but in this case, they're essential!!!]

If you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time, read this 2000+ word essay by Harvard professor Harvey Cox (retired), and tell me one thing new that he says. Find me something, anything, that hasn't basically been said since at least Machen's day.

(To be clear: by "nothing better to do," I mean nothing more important than finding out who the "Grip" was for "Plan 9 from Outer Space.") (It was Art Mankin, by the way)

Cox attempts several trendy things. After a sneering nod to the historical genesis of the term "Fundamentalism," he does his best to trash it by lumping Christian fundamentalism in with the fundamentalism of Christianoid cults such as Islam and Roman Catholicism, and with some sects within apostate Judaism. (It will surprise none to note that Cox displays no awareness of Darwinian fundamentalism, materialistic fundamentalism, modernist fundamentalism, nor tweed-coated Harvard professor fundamentalism.)

It goes like this. Here is Cox' disdainful opening paragraph:

In 1910, a cohort of ultra-conservative [!!!] American Protestants drew up a list of non-negotiable beliefs they insisted [!!!] any genuine Christian must subscribe to. They published these “fundamentals” in a series of widely distributed pamphlets over the next five years. Their catalog featured doctrines such as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, and his imminent second coming [—er, and...?]. The cornerstone, though, was a belief in the literal inerrancy of every syllable of the Bible, including in matters of geology, paleontology, and secular history. They called these beliefs fundamentals, and proudly [!!!] styled themselves “fundamentalists” - true believers who feared that liberal movements like the social gospel and openness to other faiths were eroding the foundation of their religion.

So far, in spite of his open contempt, Cox is historically at least close enough for government work. Enjoy it, because Cox seems to forget this definition almost immediately, in his rush to relativize, trivialize, and (to use a word I learned from a student at Talbot) funeralize Fundamentalism.

If nothing else is clear, one does understand that Cox thinks Fundamentalism is a bad thing, and that he wishes it "to the cornfield," where all bad things and people belong. Never mind that this has been done from the very start, and that each and every obituary thus far has been premature; never mind that this has been done to Christianity itself from the very start, leaving many generations of similarly-disappointed ill-wishers.

What Cox hopes will kill Fundamentalism is the mixing of cultures, the Intrawebs, Charismaticism, and the like. All these fundamentalisms are born of fear, ignorance, and resistance to change. This time, Cox tells us, it really really really will die. Promise! And that, to Cox, is a very good thing.

Why? Because "For plenty of thoughtful people [like, you know, Cox], fundamentalism has come to represent the most dangerous threat to open societies since the fall of communism [which these same sorts of "thoughtful people" people said wasn't all that bad, at the time... but never mind that]."

I want to go back to the premise. Cox is not taking aim at polyester suits, KJV-onlyism, the elevation of tee-totalling, anti-tobacco, anti-{insert-music-style-here}, book-and-CD-burning, opposition to lipstick and nylons, and other silliness. That may be dying, and I'd not miss it. However, for Cox, the name on the tombstone is not Cultural Fundamentalism.

According to the first paragraph, Cox is heralding the death of the insistent affirmation of "non-negotiable beliefs" definitive of Christianity, such as "the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, ...his imminent second coming[, and] belief in the literal inerrancy of every syllable of the Bible...."

With those gone, what will be left? Cox doesn't really say. Cox's only unyielding principle is that unyielding principles are bad. Well, they're bad when Christian fundamentalists hold them. What is "good," then? One has the impression of a muzzy, smeary, foggy ecumenical bonhomie, bereft of culturally-unpopular edges.

And what will be the authority of this new religion? Where will its limits be marked? By whom?

What, in other words, will be its fundamentals?

You see, the problem isn't really with "fundamentalism." That's a red herring. The problem is with Christ, with (to be specific) the only actual Jesus Christ who ever lived — the one whom we can know with certainty through Scripture.

The problem is with the Christ who calls Harvey Cox and Dan Phillips to repent of their pride and self-will, and follow Him; the Christ who calls Harvey Cox and Dan Phillips to turn their backs on the failed pursuit of the "you shall be as God" debacle; the Christ who tells Harvey Cox and Dan Phillips — and you! — that He is the way, and the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him.

The problem is with the Christ who says that His words will never pass away, that they are spirit and life, that they are binding on the life and conscience, and that continuance in them is the mark of His disciples. The problem is with the Christ who teaches that God is angry with men because of our sin, and that our only hope is in His penal, substitutionary death on the shameful and despised Cross.

The problem is with the Christ who insists that He is Lord, that He must be worshiped as God, and that we must believe Him, or suffer forever for our sins.

The problem is with that Christ who says such unpopular, untrendy things — and only secondarily with people who still believe and follow Him.

I think it isn't Fundamentalism that people want to see vanish. On such sneering lips, "fundamentalist" is a polite swear-word, a contemptuous and dismissive stand-in for Christian. And what is a "Christian"? A student of, slave of, believer in Christ Jesus.

And there's the real problem for the fundamentalist modernist. The problem isn't fundamentalism.

The problem is Jesus. What they really want to wish to the cornfield is Jesus.

And that's never going to happen.

Settled Certainty

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

f our postmodern friends are correct and all certainty is arrogance, wouldn't personal assurance of one's own salvation be just about the ultimate conceit?

Many post-evangelicals avoid that uncomfortable question by backing into some form of universalism—because, you know, the only way it doesn't seem arrogant to be certain I'm saved is if I'm pretty sure everyone is ultimately going to be saved.

Others avoid the issue altogether because, after all, that's a doctrinal conundrum and post-evangelicals aren't really into doctrine.

Of course, the correct answer to the question is succinctly distilled a familiar statement the apostle Paul made in a context where he was encouraging Timothy not to be timid. "I am not ashamed," Paul wrote; "for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day" (2 Timothy 1:12).

I love that statement. It is an absolute manifesto of settled certainty—with a note of holy triumph that, frankly, I find contagious. And I hope you do, too.

Certitude. It probably wasn't popular in Paul's time, either. But frankly it's never been more out of vogue than it is today. The fashionable thing today is to question everything. The visible church is overrun with bad preachers and weak-willed people who are convinced that the very epitome of humility is never to state anything with too much conviction.

Everything nowadays is supposed to be carefully qualified with lots of ambiguous expressions and weasel-words like "perhaps," or "possibly," or "It seems to me . . . " or "maybe." Everything (including the gospel itself) gets prefaced with, "I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge this seems reasonable—although I know other people see it differently, so I don't want to be dogmatic."

Doubt has been canonized as a virtue and renamed "epistemological humility"—as if doubting what God says could be excused by labeling it "humility."

Personal assurance is an inevitable casualty of that value system.

Paul's statement of assurance is deliberately of the opposite style: "I know," he says, and then he strengthens it even more by a second expression of firm conviction: "I am convinced." He emphatically eliminates every hint of doubt or uncertainty.

Notice: Paul is not the least bit concerned about how that might sound to someone who holds a different opinion. He doesn't preface it with any apology for his "tone." He doesn't soften it in case someone who is more timid or less certain than Paul might think he sounds arrogant. He doesn't qualify it with a lot of self-effacing disclaimers about how he might be wrong because he is, after all, merely human and therefore incapable of fully comprehending everything perfectly. There's nothing like that anywhere in Paul's epistles. Why?

Because Paul really was that certain. And he wanted Timothy to have a the same kind of settled assurance—absolute conviction; a bold heart that refused to waver from the truth.

The further implication is that you and I are supposed to have the same kind of assurance. Certainty is not something to be ashamed of—no matter how loudly the voices of postmodern skepticism squeal.

"New Doctrine"

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:48:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The Following excerpt is from "Christ’s Servant—His Duty, and Reward," preached 3 August 1862 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

know the proud flesh wants to serve Christ, by striking out new paths. Proud man has a desire to preach new doctrine, to set up a new Church; to be an original thinker, to judge, and consider, and do anything but obey. This is no service to Christ. He that would serve Christ must follow him; he must be content to tread only in the old footsteps, and go only where Christ has led the way. It is not for you and me to be originals; we must be humble copies of Christ. There must be nothing about our religion of our own inventing; it is for us to lay thought, and judgment, and opinion at the feet of Christ, and do what he bids us, simply because he gives the command.

Weekend Bonus: a response to John Mark Reynolds

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:29:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

Welcome readers from First Things: Evangel. This may look like a ploy to draw readers from there over here in order to troll for hits, but since we don't do any advertising here I think that's not a very charitable thing to say.

Full-blown, full-contact, full-body Catholic apologetics have broken out in the comments of one of my posts (it was inevitable, I am sure), and what I have to say in response to John Mark Reynolds' defense of Indulgentiarum Doctrina as not a deal-breaker toward true faith in Christ will, frankly, not be suitable for a Catholic-run web site. This is the real thing in terms of exploring the Gospel, and in terms of why to reject Catholicism not only as a "choice" or "denomination" but as an actually-false church. So I have posted the response here where Dan and Phil and I are all in agreement on this matter.

Also of note: we commonly decorate the blog to keep it from being a massive and impenetrable wall of text. No offense is meant by any of the graphics you'll see below -- they are merely visual aids. This is the internet after all and not a meager newsgroup list.

For those of you who read here but not over there, here's the post which has spawned this extra-long response. All I ask from the regular readers here is that we refrain from the high-decibel thunder-clap of sound-byte apologetics which this discussion usually brings out. Avoid saying things you cannot cite from its original source. And do not engage people who want to call you bigots or other morally-biting remarks -- those are not arguments but insults, and there's no reason to do anything but to let them speak for themselves.

Welcome. Nice to see you. Pack a lunch.

JMR gave a hero's effort to responding so far, so big credit to him. And for the record, I mean that sincerely -- because I think his goal, which I read to be "including all who are rightly called brothers in Christ at the round-table of our faith" a wholly-commendable objective, especially regarding the question of whether any Catholics are in that number.

So before we follow his defense here, let me say it plainly again: I think that the problem is with what Roman Catholicism formally teaches, and that many Catholics rightly do not believe this stuff; many believe their own reinterpretation of this stuff to guard their own faith from superstition and folly. If they believed what JMR has expounded here, there would be no reason to object. But the places where Catholicism deviates from Scripture and from the historical proclamation of the faith (which I would contend is not the same as the "unanimous declaration of the fathers") are fatal errors.

That said, Quoth he:

It is a big cosmos and there are many jobs in it.

Only Jesus can do the saving job from hell-fire and nothing, nothing, nothing can add to the great work He has done. However, humans have problem other than the fact they are going to hell and there are consequences I have called “b-problems” that are not directly against His Majesty, but He allows others to cooperate with Him in doing other jobs (like saving babies from burning buildings or taking down the Taliban).

Why not allow that there are spiritual problems of this sort as well?

I'd put the brakes on there -- because I think you're mixing up your own metaphor for the document we are referencing. The fact of the declaration regarding Indulgences is that man has two problems: judicial-eternal and judicial-temporal. The judicial-eternal ('a' problems) are resolved by Christ -- as Jugulum and others have noted, it can be interpreted as the only "serious" problem as anyone on the other side of Christ is headed toward the Father, no matter how long it thereafter takes. It's sort of a statistical game -- even if you spend a billion years in Purgatory, 1000000000/eternity is still infinitesimal. It's only a temporal consequence.

The strange thing is that this argument really overlooks the fact that it is in fact due punishment for sin, and that somehow we ought to want to escape it.

You know: as we read the New Testament, we find a couple of signposts that are really helpful in understanding the problematic nature of this proposition. The first is that it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Heb 9). That is, the writer of Hebrews thinks that Christ doesn't have to suffer over and over again for man's sinning over and over again because there is only one judgment, not a temporal and then an eternal judgment. And it is John the Baptist who tells us that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 2). The sin is not taken away if there is still some sort of purgation due to those who made it, is there? And in the resurrection when we are given our bodies back, it's odd that the state of those who are dead in Christ is seen throughout that book as not is a state of purgation or temporal payment for their own misdeeds but before the throne of God, speaking to Him and in worship before Him.

I appreciate the generousity JMR is presenting toward the doctrines and views in this matter. However, if we have an obligation to let the promulgators of this doctrinal statement speak for themselves, we also have an obligation to read them as they present themselves and not to reinterpret them so that we find what they are saying more or less acceptable. It's just as erroneous to read excessively-generous interpretations into this stuff as it is to simply reduce it to some stupid idea that salvation is like a paycheck at the end of life.

Restoring my relationship with God does not (the way He has designed things) restore my relationship to the state, the community, the church, the individual, or the cosmos.

Unquestionably true. However, the problem being addressed is the problem of Purgatory and not the problem of prison time or tort compensation.

Listen: it's a foundational fact of the faith that someone who is guilty of theft (for example, the thief on the cross -- which is a great example for this matter) may be forgiven in full of his sin against God, but may and in fact ought to serve his full sentence in this world regarding the civil/political consequences of his actions. No one is denying that on either side.

But to equivocate on this point and say that there is temporal punishment still due the magistrate in the next life is to overlook the problem that the magistrate has no authority there. We shouldn't fear the one who can only destroy the body, but rather the one who can destroy both body and soul, yes? The implication there is that the (God-established) power of the Magistrate doesn't reach into the next life.

So as we consider the question of problems 'a' and 'b', we have to see the 'b' problem for what it is, and what it cannot be is some sort of carry-over from secular, temporal justice.

He gives humans and their institutions a great gift: the right to be offended! (Remarkable really how awesome the gift of personhood to mankind was!)

The saving problem is our offense against the King of Kings, but the Great King allows us to also offend against His minister our local king. If I read the document correctly, the Blessed Virgin can add nothing in dealing with our attempted Regicide, but she might be part of the comfort God allows as we face hanging for attempted regicide.

I would agree that the document says, effectively, that Christ's merit has an infinite value in solving the problem of man's sin against God, but it is of limited value in resolving the problem of man's sin against his fellow man.

That's another way of saying what you have said here, and I wonder how that affects your defense of this document. You see: the farther we detail this doctrine out, the more like a works added to Christ's work it is going to look.

One consequence of my sin has been continued personal pain, but God has used wise ministers to help bring wholeness to that pain. They did not “forgive my sin” against God, but they did help me process the vestiges and the OTHER consequences of my sin.

See: I don't find any therapeutic language in the document. A sin of the contemporary "evangelical" church is to replace the judicial and sovereign language of our faith with the language of diagnosis and recovery. One good attribute of the document we have in front of us is that it avoids this sin.

The problem, as you rightly stated above, is the problem of "offense" and not of "wellness". If we stick to that category, the problems of this doctrine become transparently clear.

Let me try a simple example. When I call you a name (say “Regicide Puritan”), I have sinned against God and against you. God may forgive me, but I still should ask for your forgiveness. When you forgive me, something good happens. Yes?

Yeah, hang on a second. Be careful that you don't confuse my right-minded forgiveness of your error in the light of your repentance for the blood of the martyrs and the prayers of the saints -- which are specifically the activities this document mentions as part of the "treasury of the church".

Yes: that is a good thing -- both your repentance and my forgiveness of you. That's not really what this document is talking about.

I have not added to God’s forgiveness, which is so awesome that next to it your forgiveness is trivial, but God has set up the cosmos such that I still have to ask for it.

He allows for you to have a real offense requiring relational healing between us.

There are hurts He has chosen to allow to be healed in no other way. God is sovereign!

What I find ironic here is that the example -- a person offending another person -- is exactly the kind of offense that your type 'b' offenses should be, but that you don't see that the remedy for type 'b' offenses (as promulgated in Indulgentiarum Doctrina -- which, I have to note, is a 20th century document and not an old form of a doctrine which has since developed into something more therapeutic and conciliatory) is instead Purgatory, and not "healing between us".

Here's what the document says:

In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments." This is also clearly evidenced in the liturgical prayers with which the Christian community admitted to Holy Communion has addressed God since most ancient times: "that we, who are justly subjected to afflictions because of our sins, may be mercifully set free from them for the glory of thy name."

The problem is not whether it's right or wrong to do unto others as you would have them do unto you: it is whether or not Christ covers these things for us before God and whether or not we must paid for them in full before we are justified before God.

Having lived a long and icky life, I have (at times) sinned against the Church. I did not just ask God’s pardon, but my community. I got it.

We are guilty of many things and all that guilt is (of course) before God, but it does not seem to me that the document (to which you refer) adds another ground to the salvation from damnation to which the gospel refers. It tries (however successfully) to deal with other guilt where the immediate offense is against cosmic order or the Church.

I wouldn't say otherwise. The problem is that this document is transparently clear that unless those temporal punishments are all completed, you cannot stand before God, except as one being punished.

I go back to my example of the guy who needs a billion years in Purgatory. That is truly an infinitesimal period of time on the scale of all eternity. But here's the thing: the document says this --

... there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God.

So in the first place, let's dispose of the idea that the document does not refer to the "Mystical Body" of Christ -- here the Church is called that explicitly. But second, note it clearly: it is an act of charity to placate God's wrath against those who still have temporal consequences for their sins, and we do it (through the Church, of course) by the exchange of some virtue overlaid on the penal consequences, mitigating the consequences.

It's the idea that this is an "act of charity" that intrigues me here and which I want to point you to. What is happening (allegedly) in Purgatory is an act of temporal punishment which those there deserve, and while it is for their own good, it is also a penal requirement. (see Chap. 1 part 2)

It may be good for them, but it is not good to them -- it is punishment on the scale of the wrath of God. So let's please dispense with the idea that what is being described and what it being mitigated is not something which the church has always believed is the work of Christ. Making it a short-term sentence rather than an eternal sentence doesn't make the problem go away: it makes it more glaring.

Here is how I read it:

The Blessed Virgin and Lady Theotokos cannot add a single thing to my salvation from the second death. Her merits are of no use there. However, like any mother (if I am reading the document correctly) correctly she can comfort me in the first death, which I will still face and in any post-death schooling in sanctification I still face.

That may not be right, but it is not a “different gospel.”

When you say it that way, it just sounds so much nicer. I'd almost be willing to go through it myself. The problem is that the document doesn't say that at all.

What it says instead is that there is punishment due to sinners who have either omitted penance or have incomplete penance. And as punishment goes, this is necessary payment for what one has done wrong as a recompense to those who were wronged. However, some have done a good job (through Christ, of course) of being fully sanctified, and they have something of value which can help those who are under this punishment in Purgatory. This "treasury of the church" is thereby able to be dispensed by the Church (specifically, the bishops) not to make the time in Purgatory more comforting, but to reduce or remove it entirely.

That's not hardly anything like Mary comforting you when you struggle through your sanctification. It is pretty clear that this is a power of the Church "by an authoritative intervention [to dispense] to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishment."

The document accepts that though the Christian is no longer guilty and will not pay the price of sin (the death of damnation) there are still secondary consequences to that sin.

Being declared not guilty, does not make the shame (for example) vanish just the guilt.

Yes, I am sure that's true. The problem is that this document is not either about "daily life" as you will reference below. This is about something which stands in the gaps between the moment of death and the moment of glorification and welcome into the presence of God.

Good news: you're not in Hell. Bad news: you still have something which you personally must pay out before you can see God. You have work (in the form of punishment) to do.

The other good news, though, is that the Church can take the credits some have gathered up by prayer and personal holiness and apply them to you so your sentence is reduced.

And before anyone gets distracted by this, it's not about money or any other such thing -- anyone who makes this about the Catholic Church being a shill for phony forgiveness for the sake of a few bucks like some kind of prosperity gospel fakir is an ignoramous. This is about the teaching that your penalty for sin is not paid in full in Christ.

There is no question that this document asserts and requires that this is the case -- and that is an offense to the Gospel, a deal-breaker in the same vein as having to be circumcised in order to be a true follower of Christ or that there is no resurrection from the dead.

This happens all the time in daily life. Let me try another example. I am forgiven by you for calling you a Regicide Puritan, but the boo-boo I put on Russell Moore’s heart will have to heal as he witnessed my unfair attacks on his pal.

Our relationship (Moore and Reynolds) will be strained and to help restore community I will have to do acts befitting my repentance. (For example, I might put a picture of Al Mohler up in my office.) In this way, the secondary results of my sin in calling you a sin, the scandal caused to Moore ( the primary offense was against Turk by Reynolds) are healed. It is possible that Al Mohler, chock full of earned respect in the Reformed community, could intervene and speed up the process by telling Moore that really I am sorry and that he, Dr. Mohler, will vouch for me.

First of all, putting me in the company of Mohler and Moore is extraordinarily humbling, so thank you for that -- even in an example of people who ought to know each other and have a relational bond.

But your example simply doesn't take into account the basis for the doctrine explicitly spelled out in Chapter 1 of this document. The matter is the question of purgation of and reparations for sin and punishment in the life after death.

Though this is a bit tongue in cheek, it gets to the issue.

As for the “body of Christ,” I really think contextually it is an image. We are Christ’s body in one mystical sense (which is “real” though not material!), but not in the sense that I am literally an arm of Christ (material sense of body).

You have missed the point of the statement in context entirely, Dr. Reynolds. Here's the passage where it comes up:

Following in the footsteps of Christ, the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in his sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies. This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints, whereby the life of each individual son of God in Christ and through Christ is joined by a wonderful link to the life of all his other Christian brothers in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ till, as it were, a single mystical person is formed.

Thus is explained the "treasury of the Church" which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their force. This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body..

The point of saying that the Church is "one mystical body" is so that one can say in some sensible (!) way that the spiritual goods of one can be transferred to another in order to save them from purgatorial punishment. It is to find a way to call the merits of the saints necessarily the merits of Christ, except in a way that makes them more or of another type.

I just think that you have misread the Papal piece which has problems (from my point of view), but not the one you suggest. I really wish a local Catholic would take up this argument and let us know if we are both misreading this complex and interesting piece!

I welcome anyone to link us to an authoritative document which decodes Indulgentiarum Doctrina to say either what you have said, or that says something else which would contradict what I have here exposited.

You're simply mistaken, Dr. Reynolds, in your reading. You have interposed a clinical/therapeutic grid where the document has plainly laid our a judicial/penal system in which there are kinds of remittence to be paid.

This is where I usually grand-stand for the Gospel, but let it be enough to say this: while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, so much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, so much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

It's a done deal -- and to say otherwise overturns the true goodness of the Good News.

Ironic mis-prioritizing

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:32:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Many prepare assiduously for what may never happen,
But not at all for what will surely happen.

Come now!

Live now!

A Most Ingenious Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

ears ago I discovered (the hard way) that the Internet is not the friendliest place for anyone who wants to stand up for logic or defend the coherence of truth.

I've long been concerned about the erosion of rationality in postmodern culture. I've always known there are naive Christians who mindlessly parrot worldly values, and I've been concerned for years about the potential for mischief when spiritual-sounding Christian terminology gets blended with worldly irrationalism. But I had no clue how much and how far irrationalism had already infected the visible church when I posted this article on my website back in 1995.

The article is a defense of the principium contradictionis, or "the law of contradiction"—which says truth is by definition non-contradictory: "A is not non-A." (Some people prefer to speak of it as "the law of non-contradiction." Whatever.)

The law of contradiction is one of three principles classical logicians universally regard as foundational to all human thought. The other two are the law of identity, which states that an object is the same as itself: "A is A." Then there's the law of the excluded middle, meaning that when two propositions directly negate one another, one must be true and the other false; there is no third alternative: "Either A or non-A, but not both A and non-A."

The codification of those three principles is usually attributed to Aristotle. Most philosophers have regarded them as self-evident. (There have been exceptions. Hegel hated classical logic.) But those rather simple principles are the basis of formal logic and rational thought. Without them, rational discourse is simply not possible. In fact, to deny any of those principles is (by definition) irrational.

Anyway, almost 15 years ago I wrote this little essay on the law of contradiction, and it unleashed the fury of several hordes of budding "postmodern Christians." They filled my in-box with protests, solemnly assuring me that human logic is just that: "human," and therefore ungodly. To acknowledge the incomprehensibility of God is to embrace the incoherence of truth, they (illogically) insisted. Illogic? Who cares? They proudly and steadfastly embraced several contradictions in their own worldview. Their theology (early Emergent nonsense) seemed deliberately muddled. Contradictions in one's doctrine are more to be desired than gold, they seemed to be saying. Their whole idea of "faith" was a Kierkegaardian leap into dark nothingness, where (apparently) any and all biblical propositions are fair game for quacks and amateurs to question or contradict, depending on their personal whims.

But the principium contradictionis they could not tolerate, because it contradicted ideas that were frankly more basic to their worldview than the plain statements of Scripture.

So one of these guys—let's call him Daryl—was especially persistent. He e-mailed me again and again, and promised to supply me with "incontrovertible proof that the law of contradiction is false." The irony of his own boast escaped him, and it was clear from the start that his mouth was writing a check his mind could never cash. But he "stayed up half the night" noodling on the problem, then wrote me to say he had two propositions that debunked the principium contradictionis. Here's the salient part of his e-mail:

1. "This sentence is false."

2. And here's one I got from Bertrand Russell: Suppose X is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is the following proposition, "X is a member of itself." true, or false? If it's true, then it's also false. (I hope I'm saying that correctly. I got it from a book about logic.)

Anyway, there are two propositions that are both true and false.

My reply:

Daryl, I'm disappointed. This is old stuff.

Let's start with Bertrand Russell's "Set of all sets" paradox. You did state it correctly. It is a classic mathematical paradox (one of several.) Those not acquainted with it may have to think a few minutes to see the subtlety of this paradox:

Some sets are members of themselves (e.g., the set of all abstract concepts is itself an abstract concept. Therefore it is a member of the set of all abstract concepts.)
Some sets are not members of themselves. (e.g., the set of all colors is not itself a color.)
Think about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is it a member of itself, or not? If yes, the answer is no, and vice versa.

But it reflects a very naive view of logic and math to assert that such paradoxes debunk the law of contradiction. Most of them actually involve the fallacy of equivocation and can be resolved by careful definition. Search and see.

The Russell paradox is based on incomplete and outdated set theory. Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZFC) set theory is a system of axioms that avoids the Russell paradox. Jensen, Quine, Hilbert, Frege, and even Russell himself all proposed other more or less successful theories to resolve the "set of all sets" paradox. I'm not much of a mathematician, so I won't attempt to explain all those theories. (But you can Google them.) They all attack the problem by restricting or stratifying the way sets are constructed. They suggest there is a logical gap that must be bridged between the definition of a set and the set's actual construction.

In layman's terms: "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves" does not exist. In the real world it reduces to nonsense. The fact that we can define a set does not mean it actually exists. So this involves no actual contradiction and therefore can't be used to disprove the law of contradiction.

Here: I'll give you a tougher puzzle. Think about the set of all things that have never been contemplated as a set. The moment you attempt to think of it, it disappears. So technically, you can't even think about such a set, and it can't possibly exist. (But, hey! weren't you in fact thinking about it when it went 'poof'?) Like Russell's "set of all sets" it is an absurdity that can be defined but cannot exist. Such absurdities pose no threat whatsoever to the law of contradiction.

Your other paradox, "This statement is false," is a classic conundrum on the order of God and the rock that's too big for him to lift. It doesn't disprove the law of contradiction for three reasons:

Statements with self-referent truth assertions are the only kind of statements that lead to such contradictions, because they involve a kind of recursive "logic" that is inherently absurd.
Again, the statement commits the fallacy of equivocation. The paradox in "This statement is false" hinges on an ambiguity that can be eliminated with a precise definition of false.
The law of the excluded middle means every proposition must be either true or false. That disqualifies "This statement is false" as a valid proposition, because it can't be either true or false. It is an absurd statement, not a real proposition.

So the bottom line is that both of your challenges to the law of contradiction boil down to sheer nonsense. And if I may make a friendly observation, Daryl, you are all too prone to assert that nonsense is truth and vice versa.

This is a mystery to me, by the way. In [another online forum] you doggedly defended Søren Kierkegaard against the charge that he is irrational. And yet you attack rationality. If you think logic is invalid anyway, why do you object to the assertion that Kierkegaard (or you) are irrational?

Far from debunking the law of contradiction, paradoxes such as "This statement is false" have actually elevated the status of the law of contradiction in the study of formal logic and math. Computer scientists, for example, have been forced to grapple with and resolve the absurdity of self-referent truth assertions. Metalanguage is employed precisely to avoid that problem in logic, linguistics and computer programming.

Here are a couple of Web sites that have interesting discussions of mathematical paradoxes and computer programming:

http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/metaknowledge.html
http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/node25.html

(The latter has to do specifically with set theory and its relationship to Russell's paradox.)

It is perhaps necessary to point out that all true paradoxes can be resolved. If they couldn't be, they would stand as contradictions, and truth itself would be an absurd concept. (That, sadly, is precisely the conclusion some have drawn, both in the secular world and in the visible church.) But while paradoxes are interesting logic puzzles, they do not negate the law of contradiction. Christians would do well to remember this. Too many Christians have fallen into the habit of using the word "paradox" in the neo-orthodox and Kierkegaardian sense of "a flat-out contradiction that we're going to affirm anyway, thus embracing nonsense as truth."

But Scripture teaches that God is truth, and He cannot deny himself. So the law of contradiction is established on biblical authority.

Yet mathematicians and computer scientists put most theologians to shame when it comes to resolving paradoxes like these. Russell first proposed his set theory paradox in 1901. Mathematicians worldwide—including Russell himself—immediately scrambled to find a way to resolve it. Why? Because they knew if it were irresolvable—if it really debunked the law of contradiction—then it would not only nullify all mathematical knowledge; it would also render truth itself moot.

Indeed, overthrow the law of contradiction and everything can be both true and false, thus demolishing the whole concept of truth.

In effect, this is precisely what the blending of postmodernism and theology is all about. But it's foolish in the extreme to use the language of "paradox" to make truth itself seem absurd. I'm concerned about Christians who blithely say they are happy to "live with paradox," when what they really mean is that it's OK to have an irrational worldview.

Gordon Clark used to define paradox as "a charlie horse between the ears." I don't agree with Clark about everything, but he was right to defend the coherence of truth. When faced with two difficult truths we find hard to reconcile, we ought to view it as an opportunity to work out the kinks in our thinking and try to gain a better understanding of truth. If two biblical truths seem to contradict, we need to take another look and be humble enough to acknowledge that perhaps we have misunderstood one or the other (or both) of the seemingly contradictory ideas. We need to understand—like those mathematicians did at the start of the 20th century—that if "truth" really contradicted itself, the very concept of truth would be moot. Christians of all people ought to stand firmly against every charge that truth is inherently self-contradictory.

Best of centuri0n: the filthy sheep-herd

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:30:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

[OK: that'll be 4 weeks off where you got to read my "best of", and I hope it didn;t bore you to death. We'll resume with the regularly-scheduled merciless beatings next week-ish.]

I was having a discussion with my pastor, and I related it to my wife (who is the greatest blogger who never typed 1K of bandwidth). The discussion was about church leadership, and whether the metaphor of the shepherd was useful in a society like America where 95% of the people have never seen one sheep, let alone a flock, let alone a person who was herding sheep.

Now, before any of you start the “perspicuity of scripture” organ up and set your monkey to dancing, this was not a discussion questioning the sufficiency of Scripture. Tad’s an inerrancy & sufficiency guy, and in case you haven’t noticed, so am I. The question was whether you could just open up this metaphor and have it stand up on its own in today’s society without a pretty significant amount of back-fill.

So, for example, is there a 21st century American equivalent to the shepherd which we could say, “look: most of you have never seen a shepherd, so rather than try to unpack what a shepherd does, let’s think about [Profession X] which is just like being a Shepherd.” My opinion is that there is no equivalent, and we have to unpack the metaphor Scripture has for us. But we took away the challenge to think about the matter and report back.

So, I took the matter to the Holy Spirit, which in my house is manifest most often in my wife. She slept on it, and she came up with two great conclusions.

CONCLUSION #1:

Men would probably like it if the Shepherd metaphor translated into “staff sergeant” or “General” or “CEO”. It would make Macho sense to them. But they would be wrong: a Shepherd is much more like a Kindergarten teacher than like a Sergeant or a CEO. Of course, you can’t sell a lot of books to men in business if your thesis is, “Jesus really is a lot more like a good Kindergarten teacher than a superhero or a king when it comes to dealing with us stupid sinners.”

CONCLUSION #2:

The biggest separation, however, between the good shepherd metaphor and the CEO is that the Shepherd lives with his sheep in every way. That is, the shepherd has to get dirty and do distasteful and even degrading things to make sure he takes proper care of his sheep. I don’t know a lot of CEOs who are ready to degrade themselves, for example, by working in the same conditions as the hourly single parent who has to work on the line. “But cent,” you might say, “the CEO does a pretty radically different kind of work than the hourly employee,” and I’d agree with you. Christ does a pretty radically different work than I do, but you know something: though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If you are looking for the model of leadership demonstrated in Christ, look there at the dirty sheep-herd who lives with his sheep, and sleeps with his sheep, and has to personally stand between his sheep and the wolves.

Good luck with that this weekend.

BibleWorks 8 + module sale!

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:02:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

If you don't own BibleWorks, (A) you really should, particularly if you're a pastor; and (B) you should know they're having a sale for the next ten days Order BibleWorks for the first time, plus one module, and you receive $30 off.

Just buy it through their webstore and use the coupon code TENFRIEND, and Bob's your mother's brother.

As I confessed, I've an overdue review of BW8 in the works. The short version: I love it, I heartily recommend it, it simply is the most serious Bible tools you can get for the money.

Logos 4.0 launches today

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:36:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

[BTW: Last Saturday was Reformation Day, and Pyromaniacs had a post inspired by the event... in case you missed it]

Howdy boys and girls. For some time now, I've been confined in a super-secret location, beta-testing the Logos 4 software. Only now am I allowed to Go Public — and hey, look! You're the public!

Okay, the confinement part isn't true, but the rest is. The folks at Logos are unveiling their new software platform, and it boasts quite a quiver-full of changes and upgrades in performance and power. Go check it out, now.

This is not a full review, but a peek and a taste. I'm not light-speed in capturing these new applications. I still have a grossly-overdue review of BibleWorks 8 that should finally arrive this week or the next, and that's been around for a good while. But let me share some of what I am seeing about Logos 4.

All the changes I see reflect the fact that the Logos folks have been listening carefully to their customers, which is all-good. Two such specific factors may be controversial, but are clearly targeted at addressing long-standing complaints about Logos 3's speed: (1) indexing, and (2) server based operations.

Logos 4 will periodically want to perform full indexing of the product (i.e. when new databases are added). In the short run, of course, this has a significant impact on pc performance. A simple workaround Logos provides is to put off the indexing until a more convenient time.

The payoff is substantial. Because of the standing index, complex searches now take a moment or two. Example: my Logos library is very large. I did a whole-library search on propitiation. I received 4211 results in 2470 articles in 3.13 seconds, plus another 806 results in 452 new resources (not yet incorporated into the main index) in 2.48 seconds.

That same search in Logos 3 took nearly six minutes. That's a huge improvement.

Also, in ways I don't fully grasp yet, my resources are monitored on the Logos servers. That way, updates can take place overnight. But another payoff for me is that my iPhone can use the free Logos software app (that I mention here) to access — as far as I can tell — all of my Logos resources. This is really a staggering feature.

In fact, a Logos fact-sheet says that "all your documents—notes, clippings, and custom guides—are safely backed up on our servers. If your computer crashes, just reinstall Logos 4 and all your data will be restored." This also makes it possible to sync your Logos exactly with a second computer.

Logos 4 details 100 new features. Here are a few miscellaneous specifics.

Logos 4 can accommodate multiple monitors.
Logos 4 will read your selection aloud.
Put a Bible passage in the Go line on the home page, and both Passage and Exegetical searches are performed at the same time
The results that come up are more comprehensive and more usefully-displayed, including text-comparisons, cross-passages, and Information window activated by a mouse-over.

Many more facets are customizable, including layouts and tagging/rating of your favorite resources.

As I said, this is just a taste. When I'm able, I plan to do a more complete review. Go check it out yourself, compare packages — it's available to you today.

UPDATE: if all you want to do is upgrade your Logos engine, see here. I think it's certainly worth at least that.

Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:52:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The Following excerpt, chosen in honor of Reformation Day, is from "Reform," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 13 February 1859, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.

e want such an one as Martin Luther to rise from his tomb. If Martin Luther, were now to visit our so-called reformed churches, he would say with all his holy boldness "I was not half a reformer when I was alive before, now I will make thorough work of it."

How he would adjure you to cast away your superstitions, to abolish all the rites and forms and ceremonies that are not of divine appointment, and once more in the integrity of simple faith, to worship the Lord God alone, in that way alone, which the Lord God himself has ordained. Let all these, like those altars of Judaism, be cast down to the ground and utterly put away. I desire not only to be a Christian, but to be fully a Christian, walking in all the ways of my blessed Master, with a perfect heart, and I desire for all my brethren and sisters in Christ here, not only that they may have grace enough to save their souls, but grace enough to purify them from all the devices of men, from every false doctrine, from every false practice, and every evil thing.

Speak you now of doctrine? Are there not two kinds of doctrines professed among Christians, the one Arminian, and the other Calvinistic? We cannot be both right; it is impossible.

The Arminian says, "God loves all men alike."

"Not so," says the Calvinist. "He has proved to many of us by his free and distinguishing grace that he has given us more than others, not for the merit of our deservings, but according to the riches of his mercy, and the counsel of his own will."

The Arminian supposes, that Christ hath bought all men with his blood, and yet that multitudes of these redeemed ones perish. The Calvinist holds, that none can perish for whom Jesus died—that his blood was never shed in vain and that of all those whom he hath redeemed, none shall ever perish.

The Arminian teaches that though a man should be regenerated and become a child of God to-day, he may to-morrow be cast out of the covenant, and be as much a child of the devil as if no spiritual change had been wrought in him. "Not so," says the Calvinist, "Salvation is of God alone, and where once he begins he never leaves off, until he has finished the good work."

How obvious it is that we cannot both be right in matters about which we so widely differ. I exhort you, therefore, my brothers and sisters, after you have broken your images and cut down your groves, go a step further, and break down the false altars.

I can only say for myself, "If I be wrong, I desire to be set right," and for you I am solemnly concerned, "If you be wrong, may God help you to a right judgment, and bring you to see the truth, embrace it, and earnestly and valiantly maintain it. I like you to be charitable to others; but do not be too charitable to yourselves. Let others follow out their own conscientious convictions, but do you recollect, it is not your conscience that is to be your guide, but God's Word; and if your conscience is wrong, you are to bring it to God's Word that it may be reproved and "transformed by the renewing of your mind." It is for you to do what God tells you, as God tells you, when God tells you, and how God tells you.

Pardon me for a moment, if I should risk the displeasure of some I love by referring to an ordinance of the church about which we are likely to disagree. The sacred rite of baptism is administered in a great number of churches to little infants upon the sponsorship of their guardians or friends, while many of us consider that Holy Scripture teaches that believers only (without respect to their age at all) are the proper subjects of baptism, and that upon a personal profession of their faith in Christ.

I see a man take up an unconscious infant in his arms, and he says he baptizes it. When I turn to my Bible, I can see nothing whatever of this sort there. It is true I find the Lord Jesus saying, "Suffer little children to come unto me," but that affords no precedent for carrying a little child to the minister, that could not come, that was too young to walk, much less to think and understand the meaning of these things. Yet more, when Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven"—they did come to him; but I do not find that he baptized or sprinkled them at all, he gave them his blessing and they went away.

I am sure he did not baptize them, for it is expressly said, "Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples" [John 4:2].

So, then, that passage does not favor the Paedobaptist, it is quite clear. I am informed however, that the reason why children are baptized is, that we are told in the Bible that Abraham's children were circumcised. This puzzles me. I cannot see any likeness at all between the two things. But who were the persons circumcised? They were Israelites. Why were they circumcised? Because they were Israelites. That is the reason; and I say I would not hesitate to baptize any Christian, though he be a babe in Christ, as soon as he knows the Lord Jesus Christ, were he only eight days old in the faith, if he proves that he is an Israelite in the spirit himself, I will baptize him.

I have nothing to do with his father or his mother in religion. Religion is a personal act all the way through; another man cannot believe for me, cannot repent for me; and another person cannot give for me the answer of a good conscience toward God in baptism and have it done in my name. We must act on our own individual responsibility in religion by the grace of God, or else the thing is virtually not done at all.

Now I believe many godly people do sincerely worship God at this altar of infant baptism; but I am equally clear that it is my duty to do my utmost to break it down, for it is not God's altar; God's altar is believers' baptism. What said Philip to the Eunuch? "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

"Lo! here is water," said the Eunuch.

Yes, but that was not all; there must be faith, as well as water, before there could be legitimate baptism; and every baptism that is administered to any man, except he asketh it himself, on profession of his faith in Christ, is an altar at which I could not worship, for I do not believe it to be the altar of God, but an altar originally built at Rome, the pattern of which has been adopted here, to the marring of the union of the church, and to the great injury of souls.

Now, all I ask from those who differ from me in opinion is, simply to look at the matter honestly and calmly. If they can find infant baptism in the Bible, then let them practice it and worship there; if they cannot, let them be honest, and come and worship at the altar of Jerusalem, and there alone.

An old woman was once promised a Bible, if she could find a text that sanctioned infant baptism. She could only find one, and that was, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake." The minister gave her the Bible for her ingenuity, admitting, that it was an ordinance of man, and no mistake.

I quote this instance of infant baptism, as only one out of many corruptions that have crept into our churches. It is quite clear that all sects cannot be right. They may be right as to the main points essential to salvation, though in their discrepancies with one another they betray errors. I do not want you to believe that I am right. Rather turn to Scripture, and see what is right.

The day must come when Episcopacy, Independency, Wesleyanism, and every other system, must be read by the Word of God, and every form given up that is not approved before the Most High. I hope I shall always be able to lift up my voice against that charity growing up in our midst, which is not only a charity towards persons, but a charity towards doctrines. I have fervent charity towards every brother in Christ who differs from me. I love him for Christ's sake, and hold fellowship with him for the truth's sake: but I can have no charity for his errors, nor do I wish him to have any for mine. I tell him straight to his face, "If your sentiments contradict mine, either I am right and you are wrong, or you are right and I am wrong; and it is time we should meet together and search the Word of God, to see what is right."

Talk of your Evangelical Alliances, and such like: they will never endure; they may effect many blessed purposes, but they are not the remedy that is wanted for our divisions. What is wanted is, for all of us to come to the model of the Word of God, and when we have come to that, we must come together. Let us all come "to the law and to the testimony." Let the Baptist, let the Independent, let the Churchman, lay aside his old thoughts, his old prejudices, and his old traditions, and let each man search for himself, as in the sight of Almighty God, and some of the altars must go down, for they cannot all be after the divine type, when their dissimilarity is so palpable.

Come!

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:27:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Every now and then I remind myself that all sorts of people happen by this blog. For the most part, we address ourselves to folks within certain niche that, while broad, is nonetheless defined. It has edges. Yet we know we have visitors and lurkers from all across the spectrum.

That's who I'm talking to, today. I am addressing a certain group not in our normal collection of readers. There may be 500 of you, or 5, or 1. If only one, that's fine: you are who I'm talking to.

I'm supposing that you're an outsider, and that you know it. You know something about Christianity; maybe a little, maybe a lot. But you know you're not a Christian, and you're honest enough to admit it. I appreciate that.

You hear all this talk of "evangelicalism" and "election" and "sovereignty" and all that, and you're not sure what it all means. It seems pretty hard and heady. Don't feel bad about that. It's hard and heady to us, too.

But here's what you really need to know. You need to know that you should come to Jesus, right now. That's the most important thing I have to say to you. It's the only thing I have to say to you: you should come to Jesus.

There are countless reasons why you — whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever you've done — should come to Jesus. Let me give you five:

You really need Jesus. You've already begun to suspect as much. Let me earnestly assure you, you need Him far more than you know. So did I, and so do I! You need Him because you are far from God. God is not the shapeless, cuddly, Grampa in the Sky that some think. He is absolutely free from all that is wrong and wicked and sinful; He is bursting with life and purity and goodness and holiness. What is more, He cannot abide the contrary — crimes against His laws or His nature. You and I have committed those crimes. We've done it since we were old enough to do anything. We have lied, stolen, wanted things that weren't ours to have. We have lived for things or personal goals, rather than for God above all. Even one such crime makes us a criminal, and God must punish such crimes. There is no appeal beyond His court. His verdict is final, and it will be terrible.
Only Jesus meets your deepest needs. You are a criminal in God's eyes, and forgiveness is found in Jesus alone. You are spiritually dead, and headed for eternal horrors; and Jesus is the resurrection and the life. You are far from God; in Jesus alone, you will find God and know Him as your Father. You are a slave of sin, of Satan, of the world; in Jesus alone, you will be delivered.
Jesus Himself calls you to come. If He hadn't called you, I would have no right to do so now. But Jesus says, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). That is a wide-open door, big enough for you to squeeze through. He says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35). What's more, He says "whoever comes to me I will never cast out (John 6:37). To me, that is one of the most precious promises in all of Scripture. I cling to that like a drowning man to a life raft. What could possibly keep you from leaping to come, as Jesus calls you? It is a call, it is an invitation — and it is a command.
Jesus alone has the absolute right to call you and command you to come. Jesus was no mere sage nor philosopher. He was and is God in human nature, and He was and is Lord. He is not merely the king nor president of this nor that nation, of this nor that ethnicity — He is the head of the entire human race. He alone has the authority to call you and me, to command us, and He has the right to expect us to come — and to deal severely with us if we do not. That is, He has the right to make terrible and true threats to anyone who refuses to come. And He has the right to promise all the glorious, wonderful blessings which He gives as free gifts to all who do come.
When you do come, you will see that it was all a free gift of God, and that you have God alone to thank and credit for what He will do for you. Had He not drawn me, I never would have come. But because He drew me, I came. Had He not given me life, I never would have come. But He gave me life — freely! by grace! — and I came. I owe every bit of it, I must give every last ounce of credit for it, to God and to God alone. I cannot begin to tell you how much I owe Him, how much love and honor and credit and praise He deserves. For now, let me just say "ALL," and add "to Him ALONE."

No church can do this for you. No ritual can do this for you. No philosophy can do this for you. No self-improvement program can do this for you. In fact, no thing can do any of this for you. Only a person can do this for you, and only one Person can do this for you: Jesus Christ.

So, come to Him! Come now! Why ever would you not come? Now is the only time you know you have; tomorrow never comes. Many have died since you began reading this. Your need to come is urgent, your opportunity to come is fleeting

Come to Jesus!

Of course, much more should be said, and could be said. For instance:

If you want to read more about why it makes sense to believe Jesus, read this.
If you want to read more about why you need Jesus, and what He has done to meet the needs of people just like you, and what it means to believe in Jesus, read this.
If you do come, and believe in Jesus, and want to know where to go from here, read this.

And to all our readers:

Happy Reformation Day!

To God alone be all the glory!