I heard a song on Pandora called "How Could I Ever Say Thank You?" by Kathryn Scott. It reminded me of 2 things as I listened to it. The first is a verse from Psalm 116. Verse 12 says; "How can I repay the Lord for all the good he has done for me?" This is a rhetorical question. The answer is very clearly that we cannot repay the Lord for all the good he has done for us. The very next verse (v. 13) says; "I will take the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord." That is our only option; to call on the name of the Lord who has graciously and mercifully extended his hand to the very beings that have so corrupted his wondrous creation all the while reviling the creator who has offered this grace.
The second thing that struck me about this song is a line from the chorus. In it, Kathryn sings; "Love that reaches beyond each defense. Your mercy disarms the most broken of hearts. Such complete and profound faithfulness." What entered my mind the first time I heard this was what the Marine Corps calls tactics, techniques, and procedures or in the lingo of the military, TTP's. What in the world does this have to do with Marine Corps TTP's? Well, setting up a defense is one of the most complex and intricate things a combat leader can direct. Attacking, while also complex, is a bit simpler in that, as Marines, we tend to say; "Where's the enemy? OK, over there. Let's go kill them." There are various ways to set up defenses ranging from simply putting your men in a line facing the enemy and wait for them to come (think trenches in WW1) to a defense in depth (you've probably never seen this in a movie). I'm sure many of you have seen war movies of some sort and so you can think about all the implements that are used to stop the enemy while on defense: concertina wire, landmines, machine guns in overlapping fields of fire, mortars honed in on the fields of wire, etc. You can probably imagine the D-day scenes from Saving Private Ryan and the German defenses on the beach. Very complex. Now, a defense in depth is even more intricate. This calls for, in a basic way, putting a unit out as bait to bring the enemy in to a killing zone where all your firepower is concentrated. This can be done from the fire team level (4 men; smallest unit) to the army level (think General Patton directing units this way in North Africa). Defense in depth is a strategy that is generally used when trying to delay the enemy from adavancing while preparations for a counterattack are made.
All of this is to relate just how complicated military defenses can be. It gave me a visual image that matched the song because I think that we put defenses up in an effort to stave off and delay God in our rebellion. When we were lost, we were at war with God and his enemies as we were on the side of Satan (Rom. 6:15-23). But he never stopped pursuing us. He reached behind every labyrinthine defense we could muster to seek us out even though we were not seeking him (Rom 3:10-11) and as the next line in the song says; he disarmed us. His love overcame our every defense and his mercy that he freely offers disarms us. This is "such complete and profound faithfulness" that only the God of Jesus Christ could offer. No other religion presents a God so completely soldout in his effort to bring us into the Kingdom of God. Not Islam, not Mormonism, not Jehovah's Witnesses, and I could go on. Not one. It is only Yahweh who can proclaim "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." (Jer 31:3)
Paul makes this explicitly clear in a couple of passages from his letters that I will finish up with. Romans 5:8-10 says: "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, 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, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."
Titus 3:3-7 says: "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Praise be to our great God and savior, through his son Jesus Christ, our Lord!
Monday, August 29, 2016
Monday, August 22, 2016
Shepherds Feeding Themselves
There is an interesting connection between two passages in two very different books of the Bible. Jude 12 and Ezekiel 34:1-10 being those texts. Part of Jude 12 says: "These are...shepherds feeding themselves". This is said by way of analogy concerning the false teachers Jude is writing about. It is in the midst of a string of six analogies Jude uses to discuss what these false teachers are like. Likewise, Ezekiel 34:1-10 speaks of shepherds feeding themselves:
"The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them."
The passages are related in wording and subject matter, but have a different audience. Jude is addressing Christians with a warning of these false teachers who will do nothing but feed themselves. Ezekiel is prophesying a word from God directed at the shepherds of Israel as a warning of their evil behavior. While these passages are separated by a considerable amount of time from each other and from our time, they carry the same lesson that can help us right now. Ezekiel was written from approximately 595-575 BC. Most of the book is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC as well as the promises God makes to restore Israel. Jerusalem was destroyed because God had become fed up with the idolatry taking place in Israel. The "shepherds of Israel" were not merely participating in the idolatrous practices of the people, they were leading them (Ezekiel chapters 5-16). Jude most likely wrote late in the apostolic era, sometime around 65-80 AD. False teachers had slithered in to a congregation that Jude had apparently taught (Jude 5) and encouraged the disciples to use the grace of God to practice sexual immorality (Jude 4).
What can be said concerning how this relates to our time is this: there were shepherds feeding themselves in Ezekiel's time; 600 years later there were shepherds feeding themselves in Jude's time; chances are there are shepherds feeding themselves in our time (Jesus said there would be tares; Matt. 13:24-30) and these passages give us a clue as to what they act like and how we should deal with them.
1. Feeding the sheep is the shepherd's job. If a leader is feeding himself first, he isn't doing his job. If he isn't caring for the weak, the sick, the injured, or the strayed and lost, he isn't doing his job. If he is leading people astray with false teachings and encouraging sinful lifestyles, he isn't doing his job.
2. Ruling with force and harshness is not the way to lead. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). If a leader doesn't reflect these there is something wrong.
3. In the Ezekiel passage, verse 10, the Lord says: "I will require my sheep at their hand". Shepherds will be held accountable for the guidance they give their flock. This goes both ways: bad shepherds will face a fearful judgment and should be warned when they are not fulfilling their duties, and possibly even shunned and ignored while a body of believers builds themselves up (Jude 19-20), while good shepherds should be honored and given the benefit of the doubt considering the huge responsibility they have in being entrusted with a flock from God.
There are a lot of people putting themselves out there as "shepherds" of God's people in various ways. As an example, go to Lifeway or Family Christian bookstores and check out the enormous number of books being written about just about any topic you can think of concerning the Christian life. They are all trying to be shepherds in some way to the body of Christ. The message of this post is that not all of the people who put themselves forward as leaders should be trusted as sent from God. 1 John 4:1 says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." It is our duty as Christians to test every spirit and see if they are acting in accordance with the guidelines God has shown us in his word.
"The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them."
The passages are related in wording and subject matter, but have a different audience. Jude is addressing Christians with a warning of these false teachers who will do nothing but feed themselves. Ezekiel is prophesying a word from God directed at the shepherds of Israel as a warning of their evil behavior. While these passages are separated by a considerable amount of time from each other and from our time, they carry the same lesson that can help us right now. Ezekiel was written from approximately 595-575 BC. Most of the book is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC as well as the promises God makes to restore Israel. Jerusalem was destroyed because God had become fed up with the idolatry taking place in Israel. The "shepherds of Israel" were not merely participating in the idolatrous practices of the people, they were leading them (Ezekiel chapters 5-16). Jude most likely wrote late in the apostolic era, sometime around 65-80 AD. False teachers had slithered in to a congregation that Jude had apparently taught (Jude 5) and encouraged the disciples to use the grace of God to practice sexual immorality (Jude 4).
What can be said concerning how this relates to our time is this: there were shepherds feeding themselves in Ezekiel's time; 600 years later there were shepherds feeding themselves in Jude's time; chances are there are shepherds feeding themselves in our time (Jesus said there would be tares; Matt. 13:24-30) and these passages give us a clue as to what they act like and how we should deal with them.
1. Feeding the sheep is the shepherd's job. If a leader is feeding himself first, he isn't doing his job. If he isn't caring for the weak, the sick, the injured, or the strayed and lost, he isn't doing his job. If he is leading people astray with false teachings and encouraging sinful lifestyles, he isn't doing his job.
2. Ruling with force and harshness is not the way to lead. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). If a leader doesn't reflect these there is something wrong.
3. In the Ezekiel passage, verse 10, the Lord says: "I will require my sheep at their hand". Shepherds will be held accountable for the guidance they give their flock. This goes both ways: bad shepherds will face a fearful judgment and should be warned when they are not fulfilling their duties, and possibly even shunned and ignored while a body of believers builds themselves up (Jude 19-20), while good shepherds should be honored and given the benefit of the doubt considering the huge responsibility they have in being entrusted with a flock from God.
There are a lot of people putting themselves out there as "shepherds" of God's people in various ways. As an example, go to Lifeway or Family Christian bookstores and check out the enormous number of books being written about just about any topic you can think of concerning the Christian life. They are all trying to be shepherds in some way to the body of Christ. The message of this post is that not all of the people who put themselves forward as leaders should be trusted as sent from God. 1 John 4:1 says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." It is our duty as Christians to test every spirit and see if they are acting in accordance with the guidelines God has shown us in his word.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Why I am Not a Mormon
I grew up Mormon or a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). I have family that is still very involved and devoted to the teaching of the LDS church. The basic story of the LDS church is that the true gospel (the one we have in the Bible) was lost from the earth when the apostles died out and God chose to restore it through Joseph Smith in a series of visions and revelations (that later with even more revelation became the Doctrine and Covenants) and by showing him where the Book of Mormon was buried and then helping him translate it. The Book of Mormon is supposedly another testament of Jesus Christ. Specifically, it is the story of the peoples of the Americas, who are supposedly Israelites, and their eventual descent into corruption when all the good peoples were wiped out. You can read more in detail about their beliefs here.
In 2012 when God began to call me and draw me to his Son I started to investigate the claims made by Christians. In particular, I watched Lee Strobel's documentary of his book The Case for Christ. In it he made a claim that I had never heard: that the Bible generally and the New Testament in particular was reliable beyond any doubt. From there I read until, on an intellectual level, I was convinced that that claim was true. As I continued to struggle towards salvation and trust in Jesus Christ, I gave Mormon claims the same evaluation that I gave to Christian ones. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that Mormon claims don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Here are some of the things that I found in my studies and why I am not a Mormon (anymore).
1. The claim that the Bible has been changed and corrupted is false. This is a primary claim of the LDS church. Nobody in this debate is disputing that what the apostles and prophets wrote in biblical times is actually from God. What is disputed is whether or not the writings have survived accurately down to this time. Well, they have and I have posted about it here after reading and studying this issue on both sides for a couple of years. The other problem with the Mormon view of the Bible's corruption is that they accept the King James Version as being correctly translated, but the KJV has passages that clearly contradict doctrines that arose later in Mormon development.
2. The Book of Mormon does not hold up to the same investigation that the Bible does. It isn't historically reliable. There are no specific places mentioned that can be identified today. It has many anachronisms that are very hard to explain. For instance, at the end of Jacob 7:27 it says: "Brethren, adieu." This supposedly took place around 544-421 B.C. The French language doesn't start to appear until the 1st century A.D. How did a French word appear in writings from 500 B.C.? The LDS church offers this answer:
In 2012 when God began to call me and draw me to his Son I started to investigate the claims made by Christians. In particular, I watched Lee Strobel's documentary of his book The Case for Christ. In it he made a claim that I had never heard: that the Bible generally and the New Testament in particular was reliable beyond any doubt. From there I read until, on an intellectual level, I was convinced that that claim was true. As I continued to struggle towards salvation and trust in Jesus Christ, I gave Mormon claims the same evaluation that I gave to Christian ones. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that Mormon claims don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Here are some of the things that I found in my studies and why I am not a Mormon (anymore).
1. The claim that the Bible has been changed and corrupted is false. This is a primary claim of the LDS church. Nobody in this debate is disputing that what the apostles and prophets wrote in biblical times is actually from God. What is disputed is whether or not the writings have survived accurately down to this time. Well, they have and I have posted about it here after reading and studying this issue on both sides for a couple of years. The other problem with the Mormon view of the Bible's corruption is that they accept the King James Version as being correctly translated, but the KJV has passages that clearly contradict doctrines that arose later in Mormon development.
2. The Book of Mormon does not hold up to the same investigation that the Bible does. It isn't historically reliable. There are no specific places mentioned that can be identified today. It has many anachronisms that are very hard to explain. For instance, at the end of Jacob 7:27 it says: "Brethren, adieu." This supposedly took place around 544-421 B.C. The French language doesn't start to appear until the 1st century A.D. How did a French word appear in writings from 500 B.C.? The LDS church offers this answer:
"Some have questioned the use of the French word adieu in Jacob 7:27. One author explained:
“The
choice of words came through the manner of the language of Joseph
Smith, so that we might have understanding. This is why words not known
in Book of Mormon times are found in the translated text.
“The word adieu
is defined in a dictionary of Joseph Smith’s day as ‘a farewell; an
expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends’ [meaning that I
commend you to God]. (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language,
1828). While the word is of French origin, it had found common usage in
early nineteenth century New England” (Edward J. Brandt, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Oct. 1985, 17)."
It was given in Joseph Smith's language in which adieu was common at that time. This leads me to my next point.
3. The language of Jospeh Smith's time was not King James English. The Book of Mormon was "translated" into King James English, but this was not the spoken dialect of western New York state in the mid-1800's. The story of the Book of Mormons' translation is this: Joseph Smith was directed to recover the buried plates and by the use of a seeing stone God gave him the translation word for word. But why would God render it in an English translation that he didn't speak and then insert a French word that Smith used with the lingo of his time? Why didn't God translate the entire Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith's lingo as the LDS church says they did for the word adieu? Numbers 2 and 3 go together and are a small example of the enormous problems with the text of the Book of Mormon.
4. No one actually saw the golden plates that constituted the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith goaded and intimidated people into saying they saw the plates. No one really did. You can read a long article here.
5. The 11 witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon had problems staying true to the faith. They are split into a group of 3; Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris and a group of 8; Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith. All of these men attested to seeing the plates. The 3 witnesses were all excommunicated from the LDS church, 2 of the 8 witnesses apostatized while another of the 8 witnesses was excommunicated. This is very curious. Having seen what could be considered the lynchpin of the Mormon faith, the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, 6 of the 11 witnesses then left or were forced to leave the LDS church. When you compare this with the apostles of the New Testament who similarly testified to the make or break event in Christianity, the risen Christ, and then died for that claim, never recanting and never being driven out by the body of Christ, the Mormon claim becomes befuddling at best and downright dishonest at worst seeing as how the LDS church keeps the testimony of these witnesses in the front of the Book of Mormon.
6. The Mormon conception of god suffers from a vicious infinite regress that cannot be real due to the fact that it would constitute an actual infinite set. In LDS doctrine, god was once a man who was exalted through a process of learning and improvement. He "created" the universe by forming chaotic matter into what we now see as the space-time universe. This means two things. One: there had to be another god who made it possible for the god of the Bible to become exalted and achieve godhood. Two: There are other universes and planets where the path to exaltation is playing out right now like it is here on earth. The problem with both of these implications is the same. If earth god (EG) had a higher level god (HLG) that enabled him to progress to godhood, then the HLG had to have HLG2 that did the same for him. And HLG2 had to have HLG3. And HLG3 had to have HLG4. And so on. This actual infinite set of gods cannot exist. William Lane Craig has shown very convincingly why actual infinites cannot exist.
7. Finally, the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ is wrong based on the Biblical account which their latter-day prophets have reinterpreted. They see Jesus as an entirely separate being from God the Father. He is a spirit child of Heavenly Father as we all are, including Satan. This means that Satan and Jesus are brothers. The former chose the evil path while the latter chose the righteous one. As I said above, the LDS church accepts the KJV of the Bible as being correctly translated. The problem with this is that the New Testament, whether in the KJV or other modern versions, sees Jesus Christ as something more than just another Son of God or child of God as Mormons say. He is equal in ontological status with the Father and he is above Satan in many ways. He is the unique Son of God in a way that we are not since we are adopted Sons of God (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:4-6). Colossians 1:16 says about Jesus: "For by him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers: all things were created by him, and for him". If Jesus created everything, then he created Satan. The Mormon doctrine that God formed the universe means that Jesus formed the universe (according to Colossians) while at the same time he was born as a spirit child of God after the creation of the universe. Jesus could not have created the universe after it was created; that is logically impossible. Also, Jesus is so far above Satan that he doesn't even fight with him. It is Michael the Archangel that disputed about the body of Moses with the devil (Jude 9) and it is Michael who will lead the battle against him in the end of time (Rev. 12:7-9). That doesn't sound like they are equals who merely chose the right and wrong paths.
I could list another bunch of reasons why I am not a Mormon, but I think you get the point. The simple fact of the matter is that Mormonism doesn't hold up to the reality it makes claims about. This means it isn't true and that means it is part of the wide path to destruction that Jesus warned us all about.
7. Finally, the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ is wrong based on the Biblical account which their latter-day prophets have reinterpreted. They see Jesus as an entirely separate being from God the Father. He is a spirit child of Heavenly Father as we all are, including Satan. This means that Satan and Jesus are brothers. The former chose the evil path while the latter chose the righteous one. As I said above, the LDS church accepts the KJV of the Bible as being correctly translated. The problem with this is that the New Testament, whether in the KJV or other modern versions, sees Jesus Christ as something more than just another Son of God or child of God as Mormons say. He is equal in ontological status with the Father and he is above Satan in many ways. He is the unique Son of God in a way that we are not since we are adopted Sons of God (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:4-6). Colossians 1:16 says about Jesus: "For by him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers: all things were created by him, and for him". If Jesus created everything, then he created Satan. The Mormon doctrine that God formed the universe means that Jesus formed the universe (according to Colossians) while at the same time he was born as a spirit child of God after the creation of the universe. Jesus could not have created the universe after it was created; that is logically impossible. Also, Jesus is so far above Satan that he doesn't even fight with him. It is Michael the Archangel that disputed about the body of Moses with the devil (Jude 9) and it is Michael who will lead the battle against him in the end of time (Rev. 12:7-9). That doesn't sound like they are equals who merely chose the right and wrong paths.
I could list another bunch of reasons why I am not a Mormon, but I think you get the point. The simple fact of the matter is that Mormonism doesn't hold up to the reality it makes claims about. This means it isn't true and that means it is part of the wide path to destruction that Jesus warned us all about.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Don't be a Perdurantist
Many people take issue, for various reasons, with the claim that the universe had a beginning. Some people believe that the science doesn't support that assertion. Others, I would argue most, who try to find some way around the universe's beginning are trying to avoid there being a personal cause of the universe because that points to the existence of God. William Lane Craig has been the foremost defender and expositor of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which uses the beginning of the universe as a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence, and I have written an extensive post about that argument here if you are unfamiliar with it.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.
1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.
2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?
3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.
The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!
References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.
1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.
2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?
3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.
The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!
References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.
Monday, August 1, 2016
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: General Epistles
Part one, part two, part three. The first three parts; the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters, can be found with the links above. This post, the final one in this series, will cover the general epistles including Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude, and Revelation. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in James, 2 John, or 3 John.
Hebrews
2:4
A big theme through the Gospels and Acts is that God is doing miracles as signs of the new covenant that he was making with the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here, the author of Hebrews explicitly says that that is what God was doing. He also mentions gifts of the HS. The gifts are distributed according to the will of the HS (who is God), so once again, these gifts are not available when we want to use them, but as the HS wills. Also, cessationism/continuationism can be addressed here. The continuationist will say that the Gospel is attested by signs, wonders, and gifts through the power of the HS. He did it then, he will do it now. I would agree with this position. The cessationist will point to verse 3a, "It was declared at first by the Lord...", to indicate that it was only done for the inauguration of the Church until the scriptures were solidified. As I have shown before, this is a stretched interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 that doesn't really seem to work. At the very least it doesn't convince me.
3:7
Another instance of the HS being given credit for the OT text.
6:4
As believers, we share in the HS. I am not going to get into the argument over whether this passage of Hebrews means we can or cannot lose our salvation once we have it. I haven't made my mind up over that issue, though I am inclined to think we could lose it, but only from unbelief.
9:8
This is yet another instance of the HS being credited with writing the OT text. This time however, the author is expositing an underlying inference about the tabernacle structure that he says the HS meant. That is that the first section of the tabernacle must be closed before we can have access to the second section. The first section had the menorah (candle that burned oil), bread of presence, etc. These were all things that pointed to Christ. When he came, they were done away with. That left only the Holy of Holies where God's presence actually dwelt at times in Israel's history. Christ's blood gave us entry into that place and that is why the veil was torn when he died (Mark 15:38).
9:14
Translators are unsure what to make of "the eternal Spirit" that appears in this verse. Some say Holy Spirit, other think it means something about Christ's divine nature. The jury is out, and so am I on what this means!
10:15
One more time. The HS wrote the OT!
10:29
Those who "go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth" (v. 26) outrage the HS.
1 Peter
1:2
The HS sanctifies.
1:11
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1:12
The disciples preaching the Gospel do so by the power of the HS.
4:14
Persecution brings a blessing of the HS's presence.
2 Peter
1:21
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1 John
3:24
We know that God abides in us by the HS's witness.
4:2
John tells us to test every spirit. This is something that the Church severely lacks. John says that things from the HS confess that Jesus is from God and came in the flesh. This is dealing with the spirit of antichrist, which is about teachings directly contrary to the Word of God. So, in this case, it is about the words, as opposed to 1 Cor. 12:3.
4:6
People from God listen to the apostles teaching, which for us is found in the scriptures. This is how we know it is from the HS and not error.
4:13
Just like 3:24, we know God abides in us by the HS's witness.
5:6-8
The HS testifies of Christ's work because he is truth.
Jude
v. 19-20
Scoffers of prophecy and worldly people are devoid of the HS. This may be people in the church as that is what was going on with the recipient's of Jude's letter. We should ignore them and pray in the HS. This praying in the HS could be one of two things that I covered in the note at Ephesians 6:17-18.
Revelation
1:10
John says he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." This could mean he was worshipping the Lord on Sunday or it could mean he was having a vision on Sunday or it could mean that he was having a vision about the Day of the Lord. Take your pick, it is very difficult to make a convincing case for any of the options.
2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22
The HS is speaking to the churches. Notice that says churches, not church. These letters from Christ are to more believers than just in the cities on the heading.
4:2
Another instance of John being in the Spirit. This seems to help us figure out 1:10 in that clearly, this time he is having a vision, which would eliminate the first option above that John was just having a special moment of communion with God.
14:13
The voice John hears from heaven is the HS.
17:3
John gets carried away in the HS. Much like Ezekiel, scholars argue over whether this means in a vision or that physically John was transported away.
22:17
The HS and us (the Bride) are both saying, "Come", in regard to Jesus' second advent.
Most of the stuff from the general epistles could fall under the bullets from Paul's letters, so I won't rehash those. Thanks for reading. I sincerely hope that you have learned something from this series.
Hebrews
2:4
A big theme through the Gospels and Acts is that God is doing miracles as signs of the new covenant that he was making with the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here, the author of Hebrews explicitly says that that is what God was doing. He also mentions gifts of the HS. The gifts are distributed according to the will of the HS (who is God), so once again, these gifts are not available when we want to use them, but as the HS wills. Also, cessationism/continuationism can be addressed here. The continuationist will say that the Gospel is attested by signs, wonders, and gifts through the power of the HS. He did it then, he will do it now. I would agree with this position. The cessationist will point to verse 3a, "It was declared at first by the Lord...", to indicate that it was only done for the inauguration of the Church until the scriptures were solidified. As I have shown before, this is a stretched interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 that doesn't really seem to work. At the very least it doesn't convince me.
3:7
Another instance of the HS being given credit for the OT text.
6:4
As believers, we share in the HS. I am not going to get into the argument over whether this passage of Hebrews means we can or cannot lose our salvation once we have it. I haven't made my mind up over that issue, though I am inclined to think we could lose it, but only from unbelief.
9:8
This is yet another instance of the HS being credited with writing the OT text. This time however, the author is expositing an underlying inference about the tabernacle structure that he says the HS meant. That is that the first section of the tabernacle must be closed before we can have access to the second section. The first section had the menorah (candle that burned oil), bread of presence, etc. These were all things that pointed to Christ. When he came, they were done away with. That left only the Holy of Holies where God's presence actually dwelt at times in Israel's history. Christ's blood gave us entry into that place and that is why the veil was torn when he died (Mark 15:38).
9:14
Translators are unsure what to make of "the eternal Spirit" that appears in this verse. Some say Holy Spirit, other think it means something about Christ's divine nature. The jury is out, and so am I on what this means!
10:15
One more time. The HS wrote the OT!
10:29
Those who "go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth" (v. 26) outrage the HS.
1 Peter
1:2
The HS sanctifies.
1:11
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1:12
The disciples preaching the Gospel do so by the power of the HS.
4:14
Persecution brings a blessing of the HS's presence.
2 Peter
1:21
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1 John
3:24
We know that God abides in us by the HS's witness.
4:2
John tells us to test every spirit. This is something that the Church severely lacks. John says that things from the HS confess that Jesus is from God and came in the flesh. This is dealing with the spirit of antichrist, which is about teachings directly contrary to the Word of God. So, in this case, it is about the words, as opposed to 1 Cor. 12:3.
4:6
People from God listen to the apostles teaching, which for us is found in the scriptures. This is how we know it is from the HS and not error.
4:13
Just like 3:24, we know God abides in us by the HS's witness.
5:6-8
The HS testifies of Christ's work because he is truth.
Jude
v. 19-20
Scoffers of prophecy and worldly people are devoid of the HS. This may be people in the church as that is what was going on with the recipient's of Jude's letter. We should ignore them and pray in the HS. This praying in the HS could be one of two things that I covered in the note at Ephesians 6:17-18.
Revelation
1:10
John says he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." This could mean he was worshipping the Lord on Sunday or it could mean he was having a vision on Sunday or it could mean that he was having a vision about the Day of the Lord. Take your pick, it is very difficult to make a convincing case for any of the options.
2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22
The HS is speaking to the churches. Notice that says churches, not church. These letters from Christ are to more believers than just in the cities on the heading.
4:2
Another instance of John being in the Spirit. This seems to help us figure out 1:10 in that clearly, this time he is having a vision, which would eliminate the first option above that John was just having a special moment of communion with God.
14:13
The voice John hears from heaven is the HS.
17:3
John gets carried away in the HS. Much like Ezekiel, scholars argue over whether this means in a vision or that physically John was transported away.
22:17
The HS and us (the Bride) are both saying, "Come", in regard to Jesus' second advent.
Most of the stuff from the general epistles could fall under the bullets from Paul's letters, so I won't rehash those. Thanks for reading. I sincerely hope that you have learned something from this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)