Triablogue

“Why can’t we all just get along?”

2012-01-29T19:15:00.000-05:00

Polygamy Is Condemned By Scripture And Patristic Christianity

2012-01-29T17:09:00.000-05:00

I just listened to Greg Koukl's January 15 radio program. He took a call on why the Bible doesn't say more against polygamy. Koukl made some good points, but didn't say much on the subject. There's a lot more anti-polygamy material in scripture than he suggested, and neither he nor the caller discussed the patristic evidence, which is highly significant in this context. My position is that polygamy is condemned not only by the New Testament and patristic Christianity, but also by the Old Testament. For those who are interested, I wrote a post several years ago addressing all three (both testaments of scripture and the patristic literature). Read the comments section of the thread as well, since a lot of relevant material comes up there, and I interacted with some defenders of polygamy. And here's a post Matthew Schultz wrote more recently.

Men wearing briefs in public

2012-01-29T15:26:00.001-05:00

(Source)

This approach certainly has some merit.

I will also say that the next time I hear of a homosexual group going to a Christian event with signs saying I'm sorry for the way the gay agenda keeps wanting to expose your children to men wearing briefs and playing with sex toys in public will be the first time.

That said, I'm far more partial (as I think Pastor Dusman is) to a presentation of the Law and the Gospel. Mere apologies for how some churches and some church people, with whom I claim only peripheral fellowship if they're going around screaming at homosexuals and refusing to share the good news of forgiveness, new birth, washing, and renewal in Jesus Christ, have treated some homosexuals are not nearly as good as...sharing the good news of forgiveness, new birth, washing, and renewal in Jesus Christ.

Krishna & Christ: the resemblances reconsidered

2012-01-29T07:37:00.000-05:00

http://networkedblogs.com/ti5oa

Culturebound moral intuitions

2012-01-28T19:16:00.001-05:00

After sketching this basic view, Peter van Inwagen [philosophy prof. at Notre Dame] says:

Critics of the morality of the God of the Hebrews rarely ask themselves what the source of the morality from whose perspective they present their criticism is. A few years ago, I watched with great pleasure the HBO production called ‘Rome’. The final disk of the DVD version of ‘Rome’ includes interviews with some of the people involved in the production of the program. In one interview, someone or other was asked in what ways he thought the Romans were like us and unlike us. He replied that they were remarkably like us in most ways, but that there was one way in which they were very different from us: in their extreme brutality—in both their willingness to commit brutal acts and in their indifference to the pervasive, entrenched brutality of their world. When he was asked whether he could explain why we and the Romans were so different in this respect, he did not quite answer by saying ‘Christianity is what made the difference’—I don’t think he could have brought himself to say that—but he did identify ‘Judeo-Christian morality’ as the source of the difference. And that was a very good answer. The morality of almost everyone in Western Europe and the anglophone countries today (if that person is not a criminal or a sociopath) is either the morality that the Hebrew Bible was tending toward or some revised, edited version of that morality. Almost every atheist (in Western Europe and the anglophone countries), however committed he or she may be to atheism, accepts some modified version of what Judeao-Christian morality teaches about how human beings ought to treat other human beings. And even the modifications are generally achieved by using one part of that morality to attack some other part. (For example, by attempting to turn the principle ‘don’t make other people unhappy’ against Judeo-Christian sexual morality.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/01/25/van-inwagen-on-the-horrible-stuff-in-the-bible-also-the-enlightenment/

Condolences

2012-01-28T19:07:00.001-05:00

I'm sure I speak for the entire Triablogue team in expressing our condolences to Ben Witherington in his time of sorrow.

Terrorist alert: code pink

2012-01-28T15:33:00.000-05:00

Godly Arminians

2012-01-28T09:49:00.003-05:00

...it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism's major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God --> harsh Calvinists?

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/1235

This is a popular meme which Arminians are trying to promote. Of course, it’s a totally partisan characterization.

But suppose we turn it around. If Calvinists take after the Calvinist God, what would it mean for Arminians to take after the Arminian God? If Arminian behavior mirrored the behavior of the Arminian God, how would Arminians conduct themselves?

If an Arminian was walking along the beach, and saw a man beating up his girlfriend, the Arminian wouldn’t interfere. For if he tried to restrain the abusive boyfriend, that would infringe on the man’s freedom choice. For a man to truly love his girlfriend, he must free to beat her to a bloody pulp.

By the same token, an Arminian could never be a policeman, for his job would require him to constantly infringe on the freedom of criminals. Likewise, they'd never intervene in epidemics or natural disasters.

The Michael I never knew

2012-01-28T08:56:00.001-05:00

I primarily know of Michael Sudduth from his essay "The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence."He's worked with Greg Bahnsen, and used to run a blog with another person (don't remember the name).

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4956

He seems to be confusing Michael Sudduth with Michael Butler (and Tim Harris).

Different Approaches to Scripture between Protestants and Roman Catholics

2012-01-28T05:05:00.000-05:00

Regarding Jesus’s conversation with the rich young man (Matt 19:16:22), Philip writes:

Here we have what may superficially be deemed “works salvation.” However, the Lord goes on to say, upon the laments of the disciples that such perfection is exceedingly difficult, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Without the grace of God, the kingdom of heaven is inaccessible.

You have to step back here and look at what’s really going on. Here’s an approach, which shows the fundamental difference in approach to the Scriptures. It is what Roman Catholics do not do. And what the Protestant Reformers did.

You have to start with God. Ask, “What is God doing in the world?”

Rome, through the centuries, was fascinated by, enamored with, its own history. It’s as if they’re saying, “God has made us great … He has given us authority, and by golly, we deserve it. We are the See of Peter, we go back into the 300’s with this authority”, etc. It has a pile of doctrines and dogmas that it accreted. And it has to account for and justify these. This is how Rome primarily uses the Scriptures.

On the other hand, if you are to be able to really understand who God is, what He’s doing in the world, you have to start with the beginning of God’s revelation to us: His written Word. The Old Testament is very explicit about who God is, and what he’s doing in the world.

The Reformers were among the first who were able to do this – they were able to take the broad sweep of the Hebrew OT and the Greek New Testament, to look at the broad sweep of what is called “salvation history” – think of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7; think of Irenaeus “The Preaching of the Apostles”.

You need the Old Testament as an anchor for the New. And in this regard, the Reformers were able to go back and look at this, and build their theologies upon an understanding of the Character of God, and not on Rome’s infatuation with its own authority.

Quoting from George Eldon Ladd, “A Theology of the New Testament”:

Although Matthew contains some texts that seem to suggest a rigorous advocacy of law-keeping on the part of Christians, other texts give a different impression, notably 11:28-30 and 17:24-27. In the first of these texts Jesus invites people to take on his easy and light yoke. In the second, the curious story of the temple tax, Jesus speaks of the “sons of the kingdom” being “free”; the language used here is quite Pauline with its references to “freedom” and “not causing offense.” Given such Matthean texts, it is not at all obvious that Matthew is a legal rigorist….”

Ladd notes here, “Paul and Matthew have much in common”.

Here is the difference: Rome looks at a verse of Scripture and says, “how can we use this as a proof-text for our system of doctrine?” And they say, “Oh, well, we are all of grace up to Baptism, then the Catholic must be on the “sacramental treadmill” all his life. The Catholic has gotta get the sacraments, gotta get to confession” and all the “gotta-do’s” fit nicely with a “works-righteousness” interpretation of a verse like this. The Protestant looks at the Scripture and says, “how does this fit into God’s overall Revelation?”

In a way, this passage about this wealthy young man is an extension of the Sermon on the Mount material – it is not at all a kind of “works righteousness”. It is saying, “you can’t be righteous enough. You need your righteousness from another source.”

R.T. France notes the concept of “perfect” in Matthew (5:48): it s “a righteousness greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20). But perfection is, according to that verse, the characteristic of God, who has just been declared in v. 17 to be the only one who is truly “good.” The young man’s request for some “good thing” to do has brought him face to face with goodness at a level which will prove too high for him. The “goodness” of keeping commandments is, as v. 17 has reminded us, always relative; Jesus now replaces it with a demand which is absolute, the demand of the kingdom of heaven” (The Gospel of Matthew”, pg 734).

Here we are back at Paul and Romans 3:9: “There is no one righteous, not even one.”