In case you need further evidence that doctrinaire Darwinism is poison to biblical Christianity, just visit the Evolutionary Christianity website and scroll through the list of speakers. (Click on the images for short bios.)
Here’s hoping that survival of the fittest operates at the theological level!
A family friend asked me to comment on an article entitled “The Accidental Catholic”, which was recently posted on the Called to Communion blog (run by converts to Roman Catholicism from Reformed churches). Below are my comments (edited and slightly expanded).
The author’s basic argument can be summarized simply as follows:
The most serious problem with the argument is that there’s no good reason to accept the first premise. Here are some reasons why, along with some other related comments:
Posted in Apologetics, Theology
Tagged Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, sola scriptura
If anyone tells you that careful punctuation doesn’t matter, just ask them whether it’s important to discern the difference between “Let’s eat, grandpa!” and “Let’s eat grandpa!” Hopefully they’ll see the point — so to speak.
Not only can a missing comma lead to familial strife, it can also screw up your theology. In the King James Version of the Bible, Luke 23:32 is translated as follows:
And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
But in some early printings, so I’m told, the first of the two commas was inadvertently omitted:
And there were also two other malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
To think that the integrity of the atonement depended on a punctuation point!
A misplaced comma can do just as much theological damage as a missing one. At church last Sunday evening we sang the old hymn “Jesus Loves Me” from the Trinity Hymnal. The final stanza reads:
Jesus loves me, he will stay close beside me all the way;
If I love him, when I die he will take me home on high.
When sung to the traditional tune the rhythm of the melody is somewhat misleading, because the punctuation here is quite crucial. Here’s how it shouldn’t be written (and understood):
If I love him when I die, he will take me home on high.
A three-word shift in the comma makes an enormous soteriological difference! The entire doctrine of assurance is at stake in the correct placement of the punctuation mark.
Is this an instance of “comma grace”?
Posted in Theology
Tagged comma, doctrine of assurance, impeccability of Christ, King James Bible, King James Version, punctuation
Most readers of this blog will know that I’m a big fan of the brilliant Reformed apologist Cornelius Van Til. (Proof: I drink coffee out of one of these.) Most readers of Van Til will know that he was a big fan of the brilliant Reformed biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos, who was one of his professors at Princeton Seminary. Van Til described Vos as “the greatest pedagogue I ever sat under.”
I’m not sure whether the big-fan-of relation is transitive, but it seems more than fitting to pass on word from Phil Gons that Logos are planning a full English translation of Vos’ Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. However, the project is contingent on there being sufficient interest. Go here for more information, including how to pre-order at a locked-in low price.
One common argument against the traditional Christian view of hell, understood as an eternal punishment for unrepentant sin (Matt. 25:41-46; Mark 9:48; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:9-10), is that it is intrinsically unjust to inflict infinite punishment for finite sin. This argument has been deployed by both universalists and annihilationists. Defenders of the traditional view have responded to the objection in a variety of ways, but in this post I want to question the underlying assumption that the traditional view entails that hell is an infinite punishment. Not only does this not follow from the traditional view, I suggest, the idea itself should be rejected as incoherent. Objections to the idea of infinite punishment are really a red herring in debates over the doctrine of hell.
Posted in Philosophy, Theology
Tagged actual infinity, annihilationism, eternal punishment, hell, infinite punishment, potential infinity, universalism
Bell: Love Wins
Bible: Christ Wins
Posted in Theology
Tagged biblical eschatology, Christian eschatology, Love Wins, Rob Bell
1 I am speaking the truth in Christ — I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit — 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 But then I remind myself that no one will be finally accursed and cut off from Christ and that puts a swift end to the great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 5 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved too.”
6 What shall we say then? Is God unloving? By no means! 7 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on everyone, and I will have compassion on everyone.”
In a previous post I posed some questions about David VanDrunen’s defense of Two-Kingdom (2K) doctrine and raised a general objection to his position (and to similar 2K views). In response to a comment on that thread, I tried to boil down the objection as follows. On my reading, VanDrunen seems to be committed to all of the following claims:
(K1) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, people should observe the moral standard of that kingdom.
(K2) The moral standard for the common kingdom is natural law (and only natural law).
(K3) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.
(K4) It is not a deliverance of natural law that Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.
In a nutshell, my objection is that these claims form an inconsistent set: they can’t all be true. So the question is whether 2K advocates really are committed to all four claims, and if not, which do they reject.
I recently read David VanDrunen’s A Biblical Case for Natural Law and Living in God’s Two Kingdoms. VanDrunen’s is the most scholarly, articulate, measured, and irenic defense of Two-Kingdom (2K) doctrine I’ve encountered. However, I have some questions about its application and a possible objection to it in principle.
In an earlier post I offered a response to a specific objection to the doctrine of particular redemption. This objection boils down to the claim that the following two statements are incompatible:
(1) Christ did not die in an atoning sense for S.
(2) The gospel can be sincerely offered to S.
I argued that (1) and (2) can be seen to be compatible by drawing an analogy with Newcomb’s paradox in the case where one of the two boxes turns out to be empty.
Dominic Bnonn Tennant raised some characteristically thoughtful objections to my argument. He and some other readers thought they smelled a rat, in the form of a relevant disanalogy between the two scenarios. In the first part of this post, I’ll first respond directly to Bnonn’s comments; in the second, I’ll try to advance the argument a little further.
Posted in Philosophy, Theology
Tagged Calvinism, limited atonement, Newcomb's paradox, particular redemption