Here is another thing about Burk’s view of hell that Robin Parry’s response just reminded me of. To say that finite creatures can commit infinite sins against an infinite God seems to say that God is infinitely offended and infinitely “hurt” or infinitely affected by what his creatures do/did.
Reading John G. Stackhouse’s response to Burk on hell in the Counterpoint Series. Burk talks about infinite sin committed against an infinite God. I agree with John on this point. There is NOWHERE in Scripture that says this. Nothing wrong with deductive reasoning but that’s not going to “cut it.” There needs to be more in terms of a more positive argument. That is, one should show that it is patently true that an infinite sin committed against an infinite God is the case. I myself have always had some problem with sin being infinite. Just didn’t sit right with me. The other issue has to do with adding the problem Stackhouse brings up with regard to Burk not realizing his own a-priori emotionalism not being at play within his own beliefs about God and eschatology.
I want to do this one more time. My buddy Dwayne Polk brought this to our attention today.
In pointing this out, he hashed tagged with, #evangelicalwasteland and #disgusted. These hashtags are my biggest problem because by using these hashtags there’s a strong sentiment against evangelicalism or the evangelical community. You know, “The evangelical subculture is pretty #%+? up.”
Now, in a conversation with a couple of my scholarly friends on facebook last week it was assumed that if those on the side that say that Christians and Muslims DON’T worship the same God would simply read Feser’s piece here it would be self-evident that indeed Christians and Muslims DO worship the same God (correct me if I misunderstood). But here’s the point that I wanted to make and that I want to make again. Apparently, according Francis Beckwith, there are a number of scholars in which it is NOT self-evident that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
So. If that is the case, then:
A. Wheaton is not being THAT paranoid about it’s concerned over statements made by Dr. Hawkins. They fall within the “no” camp that these other scholars that Beckwith talks about. This is simply something they believe. This is something Hawkins DOESN’T believe.
B. Why then, are there these ad hominem remarks? Are we to say that McKnight and Molher , Wheaton et al., are the purveyors of an evangelical wasteland or merit disgust? Christianity IS tribalistic. Especially in its Protestant and evangelical manifestations. I HIGHLY doubt that it is ever going to be the case that it won’t be. So why the ad hominem? Why can’t we just accept this tribalism for what it is? Why can’t we just accept that there are different camps and leave it at that?
Let me throw another issue out there. Baptism. Nobody makes a deal out of the fact that there are different schools of thought on it, that, well, we have not been reconciled on it and we have learned to live with differences while carrying on with the work of the Kingdom, not in spite of those differences but THROUGH those differences.
You do realize that there are people who believe that children and infants should be baptized right? You do realize that there are some who believe in “believers baptism” right? There are some who believe in in both. And then there are folk like myself who believe that non-believers can be baptized! Yes! There are those of us, who deep down believe that!
I’m not worried that someone doesn’t believe what I believe. I certainly don’t worry about what they believe. People evolve over time with regard to much of what they have come to believe. I simply, walk in that belief and carry out the work of the Kingdom through it. Maybe someone was baptized as an infant and will switch over to believers baptism as they get older because that is what they genuinely and sincerely have come to believe and they don’t think that their earlier baptism was in a sense, “enough.” Can God, through the revealing of the Holy Spirit not lead people down a particular pathway? And especially can God not work through what is now seen formally as an “error” to bring people to him/herself, ie., God using less than ideal theology ie., health and wealth gospels, modalism, theonomy, YEC, ECP (eternal conscious punishment) etc? Yes, God works through broken vessels-always has-to bring us to greater and greater light and even still we may move yet again.
So, I say, let the tribalism be. Recognize it for what it is. God will sort it all out in the end but quit the whining and bemoaning. Serve God by the lights you have received and don’t worry about the guy beside you.
Here is an excellent post by Edward Feser that is both logical and without the ad hominem regarding the issue of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God as brought to our attention via Wheaton College’s Dr. Hawkins statements you can read here.
This should give us pause with regard to both Wheaton and the laity (“conservative Christians”, Mirsolav Volf’s term) concern over controversial statements. I would submit that even if Wheaton could not go along with what Feser says, then it would be within their ecclesiastical right to maintain it’s suspension and or possible firing.
Reading Charles Camosy’s book: “Beyond Abortion Wars: A way forward for a new generation.” Chapter one is statistically interesting. And I like it. Chapter 2 which I’m almost finished reading isn’t as appealing. Some old arguments there. Kneeft used them WAY back in the day. Talking 80’s. Basing arguments on natural law theory and a proper definition of “potential.” Ultimately, it seems as if Camosy’s is attempting to speak to a secular audience so he uses natural law arguments (self-evident rationalization?) over “religious”/philosophical arguments. My problem with this is that you HAVE TO come back to the question of personhood which is a religiously/philosophically based question. You can’t escape this. I really don’t do well with attempting to answer these kinds of questions without reference to religious/philosophical assumptions at their base level.
Let me give an example. Camosy wants to say that attempts to locate personhood is a grey area. The reason for this is similar to that time between day and night. We call that “dusk” but it isn’t fully day nor fully night. Neither is it less than day nor less than night. So which is it? For Camosy, personhood is murky water. However, on religious grounds, going back as far as the Old Testament, according to some scholars, personhood begins at embodiment. And that’s it. We don’t have to go any farther back than that. We don’t have to ask about personhood with regard or reference to this “in-between” stage. Wherever you see HUMAN embodiment you see a person. You have a psychosomatic whole.
According to J.P.Moreland, in his book, “Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis of Ethics,”the soul or spirit can live without the body, but the body cannot live without the soul. This is called “substance dualism.” Personally, I don’t have any problems with this as it regards this question of personhood and the further ramifications for the abortion question (however, let’s keep in mind this is but a portion of the religious argument). The point being the concept of “psychosomatic whole”–this side of the coin of things. Not talking about whether we have to accept all the ramifications of substance dualism, but merely whether the body can exist on its own. So the question becomes, “When does embodiment occur?” That’s all we need to know. And when is that? The earliest point is conception according to these religious philosophers. If this is the case, then Camosy might want to ask if conception is a “moment” or a “process?” Is there a time/point the fertilized egg is in process of being embodied or is it a moment in time? It seems to me though, that whether it is a moment or a process, one cannot have embodiment until said event has occurred but said event (embodiment) begins at conception.
I just started watching he first three episodes of “The Flash.” I just finished episode three on Netflix. Anyone else enjoying this TV series? This third one was one of the best episodes yet which has helped me reflect a little more deeply about principled pluralism (it also has some interesting philosophy about our running away from problems as well as running TOO something). Gonna put a spoiler out there to demonstrate what I’m talking about.
Barry has now had some time to think about his father in prison. As a matter of fact, he has being thinking about how he could rescue him since he first went. But now that Barry has supersonic speed he KNOWS he can free him without going through the proper channels and in fact he says so when he he talks to Detective Joe West in the hospital. But alas, both realize that the best way to get his dad out of prison may take longer (going through the process) but it is right and good that they do so in the end. And why is that? This scene, more than anything I’ve watch or read so far on authority demonstrates clearly what Austin Lee spoke about in his book, “Up with Authority” concerning the undermining of authority. Think about what would be the case if Barry decided to break his dad out of jail on his own? First, there would be issues of public trust. Barry (Flash) would be viewed as someone not trustworthy. Who’s to say that Barry would not bend the rules whenever it suits him? Also, what would happen with law and order–something we normally take for granted and depend on–if we decided to skirt the rules and act above the law every time it suited us? Not only would there be no public trust for the “Barry’s” of the world but we also wouldn’t have trust in the system. Think about it. You believe your father is innocent (and in Barry’s case actually is), the rest of us believe he’s guilty. You may have it within your power to free him from prison, but by doing so, you’ve done nothing to convince the rest of us that he is. You may want justice for your father but by freeing him without going through the process you’ve undermined
justice because now nobody will trust the system, ie., were those in authority in on it? The scope of concern is wider than the more immediate need (in this case).
In saying this, I’m not talking about certain rules that can be bent WITHIN the “ground rules.” I’m talking about the ground rules themselves. Certain things can or must NEVER be broken.
Let’s think about this for a second. Corey wants to say Kim Davis has no right to force her religious views on the public through the government. He says:
“This particular case however, isn’t about Ms. Davis being free to practice her religion and it isn’t about having the freedom to conform into the image and likeness of Christ. Instead, this is about Ms. Davis’s attempt to force her religious restrictions on the general public and an attempt to conform the secular government into the image and likeness of Christ (or her version thereof).”
“Every person in America has the freedom to practice their religion. However, we do not have blanket freedom to step into a government role and force that arm of government, no matter how small, to conform to our own religious beliefs. That’s not what the Bible teaches us to do. We are told to mold ourselves after Jesus– but are never told to hijack the government and force the government to conform to Jesus. Instead, we’re simply to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to be obedient to the authorities as we quietly labor at building the Kingdom of God.” You can read his whole post here.
A. Is THIS not some Christian vision of how Christianity and politics should (or in Corey’s case shouldn’t) mix? So why accuse someone of imposing their version while you do the same? Granted, I agree government should not make theological statements honouring one belief above another ie., padeo-baptism for all citizens regardless of whatever branch of Christianity you are from or religion you are but there are ways of going about this without being accused of what Corey is saying and and accommodating religious belief at the same time. Linked below.
B. The problem with what Corey says here is that because it flows from this anabaptist view it tends to be convoluted. For example, if you are a principled pluralist, you say that God is above everything else. The rest is government and civil society. With each sphere having their own role to play. God above and the rest of civil society below. So THAT understanding should has implications for both government and the public. I guess Corey would accuse someone like me of imposing my views on the rest of the unbelieving world? Seems so.
So essentially, here’s how my religious view would work out in this situation: you accommodate Kim Davis and others like her by saying, “YOU PERSONALLY don’t have to give out religious licenses. Someone in your office who doesn’t have that religious conviction can do it.” Easy stuff you’d think. Read Ryan Anderson’s piece here.
But alas, it would seem, according to Corey, that for the government to accommodate Ms. Davis and her kind that would be imposing your religious views on government. The thinking is so convoluted I wanna cry.