I'd like to discuss with you various bible-related issues that you likely haven't dealt with before, skeptical arguments that you probably won't find answered at Triablogue. I will also proceed in the discussion one point at a time, as opposed to simply trying to answer a range of different points in a single post. Care to engage?
The skeptic interprets the "for yourselves" of 31:17 to imply justification for adult men to force prepubescent girls into marriage (i.e., rape, i.e., adult-child marriages, nothing new in the ancient Middle East). Since you don't want your "god" to be found authorizing anybody to engage in pedophilia, name your strongest reasons for saying this interpretation is "unreasonable" or "incorrect".
You mean verse 18, I believe. I'm no expert on the OT, though I've read the entire Bible multiple times and have studied it for nearing 40 years. As I understand it, the phrase "for yourselves" means for marriage, or as slaves for servitude, or to be sold as slaves, maybe even to be concubines. Where in the passage does it say the Israelite men could rape them, or sexually engage them before maturity, or force them to marry them? For all we know, if the females absolutely refused to marry, then they would become slaves or be sold as slaves.
It seems to me that rape is condemned in the Mosaic Law. Though there are some passages that critics claim allow it and even [allegedly] force the victim to marry the rapist. I disagree.
Also, Ezek. 16 describes in a parable how God figuratively found the Israelites like a baby and protected and nurtured her to womanhood. Then waited till she was sexually mature to marry her. If this sentiment went back culturally to the time of the events and commands of Num. 31, then there would have been no pedophilia.
In context God punished the Midianites for their sins. God could have justly condemned all of them to death. But it was merciful on God's part to allow some of the women to live. As a culture all of them deserved death. Also, keeping any of them alive would be risky because they could later rise up and take vengeance against the Israelites. That some were spared was merciful.
I won't be answering all of your points because that merely causes the debate to fragment and makes the later posts too long. Ensuring that we devote energy toward specific propositions is far better than trying to answer every point.
First, yes, I meant Numbers 31:18. Thanks for the correction.
Second, whether I have anything to say to you depends on how you characterize skepticism toward the bible-god. If you allow that such skepticism can possibly be reasonable, I won't have much more to say. I only do battle with fundamentalists who insult my intelligence by saying my skepticism of the bible-god is unreasonable. In this case, my skepticism takes the form of "In Numbers 31:18 God was authorizing marital pedophilia".
I'm a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, so there is a sense in which I believe all non-Christian worldviews are ULTIMATELY irrational. A corollary to that would be that all skepticism toward the God of the Bible is unreasonable. But I don't always argue from an explictly presuppositional approach. I often like to do apologetics in ways that appear like the average non-presuppositional approaches [e.g. Classical, Historical, Cumulative Case, etc]. Also, while I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, I don't believe it needs to be true for Christianity to be true. The truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Inerrancy. In which case, any real errors that might be in the Bible don't necessarily disprove Christianity.
We've had long discussions before like the one on David. I currently don't have time for long discussions. So let's cut to the chase. What is your evidence and argument that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing the permissibility of marital pedophilia? Keeping in mind Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:12-13; Ezek. 16, and the book of the Song of Solomon [passim] give examples of waiting till physical [if not also psychological] maturity for marriage [and by implication sexual activity].
Also, let's not multiply threads. Try to keep your comments in this thread. You didn't need to create this new thread. But here we are in all its inefficiency.
Also, as a skeptic, why do you care? Presumably you're an atheist or agnostic. In which case, you're likely a materialist. Most atheists are naturalists, and most naturalists are materialists. All materialists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are materialists. If you are a materialist, why care about pedophilia and forced copulation. That happens in the animal world all the time. In Christianity, humans are more than animals. But in a materialist view, everything is just molecules in motion. Matter and energy in flux. Given materialism, why should anyone care that one set of molecules affects another set of molecules? Given materialism, why doubt Eliminative Materialism and Mereological Nihilism?
Eliminative Materialism holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, feelings, deliberations, decisions, intentionality, ratiocinations and acts of will aren't real.
Mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism) is the metaphysical thesis that there are no objects with proper parts. Equivalently, mereological nihilism says that mereological simples, or objects without any proper parts, are the only material objects that exist. In which case, there are no humans, but only subatomic particles.
You don't have to answer or address all those questions I asked above. I merely ask them for your consideration. We can focus on just Num. 31:18. As I said, I don't have lots of time to discuss. BTW, here's my favorite version of this lecture by William Lane Craig. Unfortunately, it's low in visual quality.
You say "...my Calvinistic perspective..." at another blog. Do you accept as biblically justified, the following quotation from section III of the Westminster Confession?
"I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
I'm perfectly well aware that the rest of the sentence denies that this means god is the author of sin, but one step at a time.
There are many different senses one can mean by "author" in the phrase "author of sin" as the late Steve Hays pointed out on Triablogue.blogspot.com. Some Calvinists will reject all senses, while other Calvinists will affirm some senses and reject others. Suffice it to say that there are some senses that I have no problem with saying God is the author of sin. Other senses I'm hesitant to affirm, or are willing to affirm as last options. An example of an extreme view is Vincent Cheung's views [see his freely online book "The Author of Sin"]. He affirms God is the author of sin in EVERY sense. I'm open to that view [and a number of his views regarding God's sovereignty] as last options, but they aren't my default views/positions. They aren't necessary views to hold. There are other less extreme options available. Back to the topic at hand.
I ask again: //What is your evidence and argument that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing the permissibility of marital pedophilia? Keeping in mind Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:12-13; Ezek. 16, and the book of the Song of Solomon [passim] give examples of waiting till physical [if not also psychological] maturity for marriage [and by implication sexual activity].//
I'm not changing the topic. I said "Ensuring that we devote energy toward specific propositions is far better than trying to answer every point". I'm going to use the Westminster Confession to help justify my viewing Numbers 31:18 as divine authorization of sex within adult-child marriages.
I also said "one step at a time". I was trying to preclude a discussion of "author of sin" because I don't need to get into what that part of the Confession meant, to justify my interpretation of Numbers 31:18. But you went off on a tangent about how various Calvinists intepret this "author of sin" phrase. One step at a time. This is MY argument, and I'm not yet needing to worry about what that phrase means. If I feel the need to use the phrase against you or to support my interpretation of that bible verse, I will, but not for now.
Next step: The WC says God "ordained" all things whatsoever. It does not make sense to pretend that an intelligent agent can "ordain" an act without also wanting or willing that act. Any standard thesaurus provides several synonyms for "ordain" (i.e., order, dictate, require, command, decree, etc), but nothing changes: It is equally senseless to pretend an intelligent agent can "order, dictate, require, command, or decree" that somebody perform some act, without also WANTING or WILLING that person to commit that act. THe second you pretend God is the special exception, I will accuse you of proving that religious language is, at least here, incoherent. You want an intelligent being to "ordain" without also "willing" the same act, and yet all evidence indicates this is an impossibility.
So unless you can show that god "ordains" sin without also "willing" it, then I am going to be reasonable to conclude that, because under Calvinism everything that takes place, including sin, happens in perfect accord with God's "secret" or sovereign will, no exceptions, ever, then the fact that men have raped prepubescent girls in the past will force the conclusion under the Westminster Confession that god "ordained" those rapes, and therefore, he also "willed" those rapes. I will then use "god wills child-rape" to proceed to the next step in justifying my interpretation of Numbers 31:17.
You moved the goal posts or at least equivocating. Your original claim was that "God was authorizing marital pedophilia" in Num. 31:18. But God ordaining something is not a public authorization and sanctioning of something. You yourself acknowledged that Calvinists refer to God's decree as " God's 'secret' or sovereign will." It's called secret for a reason. Because we often don't know it on account of the fact that God usually doesn't reveal what He has decreed or ordained. For example, God has ordained whether it will rain tomorrow in your area or not. Neither of us knows for certain whether it will rain there. Ordaining doesn't necessary entail authorizing. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. For example, in a sting operation a police captain might ordain or will or purpose a drug dealer to come to a meeting to sell drugs so that he can be arrested. But that doesn't mean he authorized the drug dealer to attempt to sell drugs. It's illegal to do so. In the same way, Calvinists distinguish between 1. God's revealed will of commands and prescriptions, and 2. God's will of decree. God decreed that Pharaoh would not let Israel go, but God didn't authorize Pharaoh to not let His people God. In fact, the oppose it was the case. God positively commanded Pharaoh TO let His people go. Calvinists distinguish between 2 or 3 kinds of God's Will. I distinguish between 6 kinds in my blogpost below:
Distinctions in God's Will from a Calvinist Perspective https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/11/distinctions-in-gods-will-from.html
I explain my views more fully in that blogpost, but here are the Six kinds: 1. God's WILL OF DECREE [also known as "sovereign will" or "decretive will of God"] 2. God's WILL OF DEVICE [AKA "purposive will"] 3. God's WILL OF DEMAND [AKA God's "preceptive will" or "prescriptive will" or "revealed will"] 4. God's WILL OF DELIGHT [AKA God's "dispositional will," "will of disposition" or "will of desire"] 5. God's WILL OF DIRECTION 6. God's WILL OF DESIGN
Numbers 31:18 is part of God's revealed will, not God's will of decree.
//It does not make sense to pretend that an intelligent agent can "ordain" an act without also wanting or willing that act. // //You want an intelligent being to "ordain" without also "willing" the same act, and yet all evidence indicates this is an impossibility. //
God wills willingly, not unwillingly. But that doesn't mean that everything God wills God fully approves of or is pleased with. To say that it is good that X shall happen doesn't entail that X is good in itself. Only that it is good that X will happen because [e.g.] of other second-order goods that might happen or accrue do to it happening. It's not good [in itself] for humanity to fall into sin. But God ordained it for other higher second-order goods like: for the sake of the greater blessing of the elect; for the greater glory of God; for the need for redemption through the incarnation; for the manifestation of God's grace and justice; etc.
God can, so to speak, see through two lenses: 1. a narrow view and 2. an all-encompassing wide view. From the narrow lens, any sin or evil is displeasing to God in and of itself in that limited context. But with God's wider lens God can see how a tragedy can be for the good in the long run. See for example the Star Trek TOS episode [S01E28] where even Kirk understood that it would be best for Edith Keeler to die to prevent the Nazis from conquering the world. Of course there's a disanalogy in that Kirk, as a human, has no business violating God's revealed will of preserving life by allowing a death that could have been easily prevented. Theoretically, if you could travel back in time, it would be evil and contrary to God's will to kill baby Hitler.
I was only using the WC and the Calvinist view that God wills all child-rapes, to justify rejecting your knee-jerk reaction by which you blindly assume that there is simply no way in hell that Numbers 31:18 could possibly be justifying sex within adult-child marriages. If I can be reasonable to say God wills all actual cases of child-rape, I'm very reasonable to reject the Christian scoffers and insist that when such a god gives such a command as Numbers 31:18, the interpretation that he is authorizing pedophilic acts most definitely remains on the table of viable possibilities, it is by no means "absurd" or highly improbable.
If I had a history, like the Calvinist god, of willing millions of cases of marital child rape, and then you heard me instruct some gang that among the people they kidnapped, they should kill the male babies (Numbers 31:17) and "keep alive for yourselves the little girls" (v. 18), you would have abundant probable cause to think I was authorizing sex within adult child marriages, in v. 18.
There is no moving of goal posts. Reasonableness of interpretation does not demand restriction to consideration of grammar, context and genre. YOUR presuppositions may possibly show that my interpretation is at least reasonable even if not infallible.
You talk about my presuppositions. But they include the Bible's teaching of waiting until physical maturity for marriage and intercourse [as I pointed out in the Bible passages I cited above], and the Bible's general prohibition and condemnation of rape.
Just because God has ordained millions of murders doesn't entail that God authorizes or sanctions murder. The same is true about pedophilia. The burden of proof was on you to show that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing and sanctioning [by His prescriptive will] forced pedophilia, and you've not presented any evidence towards that conclusion whatsoever [at leasts so far]. Instead, you made category errors by conflating God's prescriptive will and God's decretive will.
Moreover, you're not merely supposed to refute a Calvinist understanding of the Bible, but generally a conservative Christian's understanding of the Bible. So, your attempts to show that Calvinism makes it less unlikely that God could give a command authorizing pedophilia in Num. 31:18 doesn't do enough, even if you succeeded. Because your positive arguments also have to address non-Calvinist interpretations of the Bible and conceptions of God [e.g. Arminian, Molinist, etc.]. Also, a logical possibility doesn't amount to a live possibility, or even a probability. Your burden is to show that it's more likely than not that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing rape and pedophilia. The verse is about virginity, and not age. This would include post-pubescent girls as well.
While the events of Numbers 31 takes place before the giving of the book of Deuteronomy, the book's laws might indicate some of the practices that took place during the events of Numbers. Deuteronomy prohibits covenants and marriages with the gentiles of the Promised Land [Deut. 7:1-3]. And when captives are taken in war, there's this command in Deut. 21:10-14:
10 "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
The command is about women, not about prepubescent girls. There's nothing about marriage to or rape of prepubescent girls.
Remember too that 31:18 comes on the heals of the previous verses, esp. 14-16:
14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.
Meaning, the incident of when the Israelites committed idolatry and sexual immorality with the pagans as a result of Balak's plot and Balaam's prophesying. The women who might normally be spared were killed because they participated in the pagan religious & sexual orgy. That's why the virgin females were exempted in verse 18 of Number 31 because they didn't participate in the orgy. Not because an authorization was given to rape prepubescent girls. Again, the verse is about virginity, and not age.
Sorry, I keep getting a "comment too long" nag, so I've decided to delete most of my response, provide a little reply, and move on with further argument to justify my interpretation of Numbers 31:18.
First, I don't aspire to bible inerrancy, and since today's Calvinists often accuse each other of self-contradiction, there is apparently nothing the least bit unreasonable in my allowing for the possibility that Paul, no less an imperfect sinner than you, contradicted his own theology. It isn't like you could ever make the least bit of a compelling case for Paul being inspired by God to the point of infallibility/inerrancy to write the book of Romans. So if and when I say Paul contradicted himself in that book, I'm not alleging anything that is out of the ordinary or otherwise irrational. Nobody can make even a slightly compelling case that the Epistle of Barnabas is inspired by God, therefore, if I allege he contradicted himself within that single book, nobody will think such a possibility is unreasonable.
Second, Romans 7:7 has Paul explicitly DENYING that he could possibly have known coveting was a sin apart from the revealed law of god. Paul would not have known coveting was a sin unless the law had said "thou shalt not covet". That's a non-controversial position, for indeed it is through the law that one gains knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). That's one place I think Paul was, so far, consistent with himself.
Third, under Paul's above-stated principle, Paul would therefore not know that sexual relations with a child-spouse was sinful unless the revealed law had condemned it equally as clearly as "thou shalt not covet" condemns coveting. Unfortunately for you, in context, "law" for Paul does not mean "just anything about god you can possibly find anywhere in the Hebrew canon". Paul's quotation of "thou shalt not covet" is a contextual indicator that he was talking about Mosaic law, i.e., straight-forward statements from god that either command or prohibit a specific act.
Well, if you cannot know coveting is a sin without the existence of a revealed law directly prohibiting the act, such as "thou shalt not covet", then you also cannot know that sex with a 9 year old wife is a sin without the existence of a revealed law that directly prohibits the act, such as "thou shalt not have sex with thy wife until she is at least ___ years old". Ezekiel 16 does not contain such express commands, it only shows, at best, what sexual morality was normative for Jews living more than 700 years after Moses.
Being an advocate of biblical inerrancy, you will run to Romans 2 and insist that Paul taught that he can also know what sin is by consulting his heart into which god placed the "law". But a) I reject the non-essential doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and b) since Christian scholars have been accusing each other of self-inconsistency for centuries, there is nothing particularly unreasonable in me remaining open to the possibility that Paul was no different than a Christian scholar, and was very capable of arguing in Romans 7 for conclusions that contradict the conclusions he argued for in Romans 2.
I am only required to show my position is "reasonable", not "correct". For while one can certainly be reasonable to hold a "correct" belief, by no means does it follow that it is only correct beliefs that can possibly be reasonable. Your own non-absolute positions on bible inerrancy and Calvinism seem to indicate you don't think being "correct" is a necessary condition to achieving minimal "reasonableness".
If then you would show that my argument from Romans 7:7 is unreasonable, you will have to show that my interpretation of Romans 7:7 is not just wrong, but "clearly" wrong. I will agree that unreasonableness likely attaches to positions that are "clearly" wrong. But if the wrongness is anything less than clear, then whether the wrongness is also unreasonable, will likely remain an ultimately subjective judgment call.
You don't establish the unreasonableness of my use of Romans 7:7 by merely pointing to the heart-based knowledge of the law in Romans 2, shouting "biblical inerrancy!", then mumbling something about how idolatrous the hermeneutic of suspicion is. Good luck.
//Being an advocate of biblical inerrancy, you will run to Romans 2 and insist that Paul taught that he can also know what sin is by consulting his heart into which god placed the "law". But a) I reject the non-essential doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and b) since Christian scholars have been accusing each other of self-inconsistency for centuries, there is nothing particularly unreasonable in me remaining open to the possibility that Paul was no different than a Christian scholar, and was very capable of arguing in Romans 7 for conclusions that contradict the conclusions he argued for in Romans 2.//
You haven't shown an inconsistency in Paul. You've only hypothetically posited a possible [even unreasonable] one. His statements are perfectly harmonizable. Also, Paul's statement in 7:7 echos and is anticipated by 2:12 which is only TWO VERSES AWAY from 2:14-15 about the conscience. So, why assume Paul was unaware of a possible charge of contradiction in his thought? I wrote what I did below before reading the statement that you made above. I'll keep it mostly unchanged because it would take too long to restructure it, and the case nevertheless should be made given the presuppositional approach of doing apologetics by engaging entire worldviews. Also because you wrote: //If then you would show that my argument from Romans 7:7 is unreasonable, you will have to show that my interpretation of Romans 7:7 is not just wrong, but "clearly" wrong.//
//...Romans 7:7 has Paul explicitly DENYING that he could possibly have known coveting was a sin apart from the revealed law of god.// //...under Paul's above-stated principle, Paul would therefore not know that sexual relations with a child-spouse was sinful unless the revealed law had condemned it equally as clearly as "thou shalt not covet" condemns coveting.//
Your interpretation 1. contradicts Paul's own teaching in Rom. 1-2 about innate knowlede of God and the God given conscience. 2. it also makes Paul contradict himself. By "know" he's talking about having justified and certain knowledge via public propositional Special Revelation that one is certainly under the judgment and censure of God for his sins and are grounded in reality, rather than that those feelings of guilt that one might have being anomalous. Though one might not have those feelings of guilt if the conscience [1 Tim. 4:2]. He's not denying General Revelation which includes the work of the law of God that's written on all human hearts [Rom. 2:14-15] such that men, even in a fallen and sinful state, can intuit some moral truths. In which case, some non-Christians [as well as Christians] can intuit the immorality of pedophilia [assuming the culture they are in isn't so depraved that it doesn't overly oppress the human conscience]. If General Revelation is such that humans can know from creation that God exists, and if they are endowed with reason that reflects God's omni-rationality, then they can infer from the world around them telos/purpose/goals. And so can come to intuit humans aren't meant to be mere sex objects. That children are to be loved, nurtured and protected. That the delay in sexual maturity is teleologic and meant by God to imply that children shouldn't engage in sexual activity in youth. The concept of General Revelation [& by extention "Natural Law" & teleology] didn't begin with Paul but has precedent [even if only in seed form] in the OT: Ps. 19; 104:24; Job 12:7ff.; Pro. 8; passim.
//Paul's quotation of "thou shalt not covet" is a contextual indicator that he was talking about Mosaic law, i.e., straight-forward statements from god that either command or prohibit a specific act.// //Unfortunately for you, in context, "law" for Paul does not mean "just anything about god you can possibly find anywhere in the Hebrew canon". //
Any theologian can tell you that Paul uses "law" in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. Sometimes to refer only to the decalogue, OR only to the Torah, OR only to the Mosaic covenant, OR only to the actual laws of that covenant, OR to all of the Tanakh, OR to a principle; OR to the strict requirements of the law as a means of justification in contrast to grace; et cetera. Elsewhere Paul affirms the utility of ALL of the OT for moral instruction. You probably think 2 Tim. is Deutero-Pauline, I'll nevertheless quote it.
In the same book Paul says in Rom. 15:4 "For WHATEVER WAS WRITTEN in former days was written for our INSTRUCTION, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
1 Cor. 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our INSTRUCTION, on whom the end of the ages has come.
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
//... then you also cannot know that sex with a 9 year old wife is a sin without the existence of a revealed law that directly prohibits the act, such as "thou shalt not have sex with thy wife until she is at least ___ years old".//
But having proved that Paul sees all of the OT as a source of moral instruction,then what I said before applies. //Keeping in mind Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:12-13; Ezek. 16, and the book of the Song of Solomon [passim] give examples of waiting till physical [if not also psychological] maturity for marriage [and by implication sexual activity].//
Moreover, the Bible teaches us to protect and nurture children and orphans, and to promote human life and well being. Given that, and given that we know that girls [prepubescent and pubescent] who engage in sexual activity are physically as well as mentally harmed, therefore sex with minors is wrong and evil. For example, even pubescent girls who have started puberty have a higher incidence of death at birth and perforations between the wall of the vagina and the anus leading to life long complications [e.g. fecal incontinence].
Paul himself understood the principle of loving others as oneself [Lev. 19:18] in relation to marriage: Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, Eph. 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
// Ezekiel 16 does not contain such express commands, it only shows, at best, what sexual morality was normative for Jews living more than 700 years after Moses.//
But Deut. 21:10-14 was very close by comparison. And it's called "Deuteronomy" in English from the Greek "deuteros" (second) and "nomos" (law) because in a sense, it is a reiteration, re-statement and explication of the Law with some modifications and additions to the new/next generation who were to enter the Land. But it's not a completely new revelation or law, and so in some sense reflects the laws & practices in operation prior. So, the moral sentiments & sensibilities aren't entirely novel. Cf. Deut. 29:1-3; ch. 5; 1:1-5.
//...name your strongest reasons for saying this interpretation is "unreasonable" or "incorrect".// //I am only required to show my position is "reasonable", not "correct". For while one can certainly be reasonable to hold a "correct" belief, by no means does it follow that it is only correct beliefs that can possibly be reasonable. Your own non-absolute positions on bible inerrancy and Calvinism seem to indicate you don't think being "correct" is a necessary condition to achieving minimal "reasonableness".//
Unreasonablenes is a low bar, and I can understand why you would want to keep it low. It's not unreasonable to posit that we're in the Matrix, but what's more interesting and useful is the question of likelihood and probabilities. Is your interpretation of Num. 31:18 more probably true or false? You haven't provided any evidence for it's likely truth, like someone might not have presented positive evidence for being in the Matrix despite it not being "unreasonable." Same with Paul's alleged inconsistency in the same book. Also & ultimately, what is "reasonable/unreasonable" are both a function of and rated by one's worldview. I don't find your interpretations reasonable in the Christian worldview, or even most non-Christian worldviews. I don't have forever. Cut to the chase and SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false, even given a non-Christian worldview. Given your own parameters you foisted on me, SHOW it to me only using the the Torah and the Semitic cultures at the time of it's writing and/or at the time of it's alleged events [if you think they indicate a false date of composition]. You probably don't even believe a Moses existed, or an Exodus and a conquering of the Promised Land. Why not just say that it was written long after [centuries?] they are claimed to have been and tell us what the real authors meant by Num. 31:18 given the Documentary Hypothesis.
TYPO correction: //Though one might not have those feelings of guilt if the conscience [[[is seared]]] [1 Tim. 4:2].//
Additional Note: Christian apologist David Wood is a psychopath and so doesn't have feelings of guilt. Yet, he nevertheless is able to know that things are right and wrong. See his videos and testimonies on YouTube. For example his shocking conversion testimony HERE:
Typo Correction: //assuming the culture they are in isn't so depraved that it doesn't overly oppress [[[suppress, not oppress]]] the human conscience//
//Paul himself understood the principle of loving others as oneself [Lev. 19:18] in relation to marriage: Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, Eph. 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,//
I forgot to add to that comment the following:
That given that, and given the Christian assumption [that you don't share] that the God of OT Judaism and Christianity are the same and therefore the moralities are essentially the same [even if the specific details of the law are different depending on the Covenant], then God would have expected Jewish husbands to cherish, be kind to, love and be considerate of their wives. Even the Law in Deut. 21:10-14 of marrying female war captives seems to reflect that (cf. Gen. 2:23-25; Prov. 5:15-19; Song of Songs). The OT seems to circumscribe permissible sex only within marriage or concubinage. Therefore, sex with minor would require marriage/concubinage. But if marriage/concubinage requires not harming but causing the other to flourish, then having sex with minors would be banned precisely because it would harm not only another person, but one's supposed hypothetical spouse/concubine. In other words, it would be incoherent and contradictory. Because, to repeat: Sex requires marriage or concubinage; marriage/concubinage requires no intrinsic harm; and sex with female minors entails intrinsic harm. You might ask me about sex and marriage with respect to male minors. That's a totally different topic. But it's not directly relevant to the topic at hand, viz., Num. 31:18 and your interpretation.
"Cut to the chase and SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false, even given a non-Christian worldview." -----------Why are you asking me to commit a sin? Nothing in the NT expresses or implies that god wants Christians to ask non-Christians to sin.
When Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:11 "Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our INSTRUCTION, on whom the end of the ages has come," in context He's talking about a narrative part of the Torah, and not didactic, prescriptive, or proscriptive parts. So, Paul did derive moral instruction from passages that were not explicit laws.
Five problems: First, your comment that "unreasonable" is a low bar, is your problem. YOU are the one who hurls the "unreasonable" accusation at me. As long as you allege I'm "unreasonable", I can sufficiently rebut this by showing my belief is "reasonable", low bar or no bar. You will pretend I need to be worried as to whether my viewpoint is "correct", but that is foolish, given that Trinitarians disagree with each other on nearly everything except the Trinity.
Second, it doesn't matter how Paul uses "Law" elsewhere, I'm only interested in the nuance he intended in Romans 7:7. By directly quoting one of the 10 commandments in the verse, there is a contextual argument that he meant he would not have known coveting was a sin unless there was an EXPLICIT command in the physical Torah directly prohibiting it. That's not rendered unreasonable merely because Paul used "Law" in different senses in different contexts. How he meant "law" in specifically Romans 7:7 is all that matters. I reject biblical inerrancy, so I don't really care whether he stated otherwise elsewhere.
Third, Paul says "I would NOT have known..." in that verse. What exactly is he denying? It seems to me that his intention is straight-forward: He wouldn't know coveting was a sin unless the Law expressly forbade it. He would not have known adultery was a sin unless the Law explicitly forbade it. Thus, he would not have known that sex within adult-child marriages was a sin, except the Law had expressly forbade it. Nothing in the "Law" expressly forbids sex within adult-child marriages. There is also nothing in the law expressing the minimum age a girl must reach before God will approve of her having marital relations. I already explained that I'm not an inerrantist, and yet you immediately pretended that because my view of 7:7 was contrary to your interpretation of something Paul wrote elsewhere, surely I was misinterpreting 7:7. Jesus never expressed or implied that his followers must aspire to biblical inerrancy, and yet by using bible inerrancy to guide your interpretations, you are acting as if bible inerrancy is literally the key to proper theological knowledge. I maintain that if the Author and Finisher of your faith did not require it, it's probably because he didn't think it was necessary to either salvation or sanctification. And yet bible inerrancy infects literally everything you have to say about Jesus or the bible.
Fourth, you laughably complain that the sex act with a prepuescent girl would cause injury and pain, thus we know the act is wrong. But a) it is your god that created the hymen, and thus must have wanted the vast majority of women to experience pain during first intercourse; b) if Copan and Flannagan are correct, Moses and Joshua did not wholesale slaughter the Canaanites, but mostly only "dispossessed" them, or shooed them out of the desired territory, when in fact the outskirts of the promised land was barren territory (Ex. 15:22). Your god has exactly ZERO moral objections to inflicting slow sustained misery upon children.
Fifth, you aren't solving the Romans 7:7 problem by running to Romans 2. Romans 2 does not teach that there is way, alternative to the Law, that somebody can "intuit" sin. Romans 2:15 insists that the work of the LAW is written on the hearts of unbelieving Gentiles. There are contextual indicators that he is talking about actual Torah (2:12, "without the law" cannot mean "without a conscience", but only without the physical Torah. Same in 2:14. The Jews rely on the "law", v. 17. They are not relying on a generalized moral conscience, but on actual Torah. Paul then mentions stealing, adultery and idolatry in vv. 21-22). Thus, 2:15 is not a catch-all that prohibits other possible acts that the "Law" doesn't get around to actually prohibiting. So when you attempt to conclude that on the basis of Romans 2, mankind can "know" that sex within adult-child marriage is immoral, you must still show the Law itself does indeed explicitly prohibit such act no less explicitly than it prohibits stealing, adultery and idolatry. You can't. Otherwise, you are using Romans 2 to get things out of the Law that the Law never delivered in the first place.
Once again, seeing in Numbers 31:18 a divine authorization for sex within adult-child marriages, does not "contradict" anything in the context (i.e., anything which Mosaic Law instilled into the Hebrews to whom Moses was specifically speaking in that verse).
Before I give a fuller response, what did you mean by this?
//"Cut to the chase and SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false, even given a non-Christian worldview." -----------Why are you asking me to commit a sin? Nothing in the NT expresses or implies that god wants Christians to ask non-Christians to sin.//
What do you mean by me asking you to commit a sin? I'm not sure what you mean. I have a suspicion, but I need your clarification & confirmation that you meant what I think you probably meant.
You can continue the conversation in the comments there. I apologize for creating new threads here. Sometimes I accidentally do that when I respond using my cellphone.
"What do you mean by me asking you to commit a sin?" ------------You asked or demanded of me: "SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false".......Under your theology of presuppositionalism and Calvinism, could an unregenerate unbeliever even attempt to fulfill your demand without sinning, yes or no? You think unbelievers are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). You don't make any exceptions for atheist counter-apologists who are charging god with great immorality (as I obviously do when I say God was authorizing marital pedophilia in Numbers 31:18). So you first need to show from the bible, that asking an unregenerate person to justify their attack on god's righteousness, can possibly NOT be a sin, before we can progress further. If I am grouping myself with those mentioned in Romans 1:18-23 when I attack god's righteousness, it's a pretty safe bet that if you ask us to *justify* attacking god's righteousness, not only are you asking us to sin, the request is a sin all by itself. Can an attempt to attack god's righteousness possibly be done without sin, yes or no?
Just as you did with Paul, you're reading my comments in a fundamentalistically literal way. I was challenging you to give me a reason to continue this line of discussion; because if your interpretation isn't probable, then it poses little threat to Christianity. I said I don't have time for a long discussion.
//So you first need to show from the bible, that asking an unregenerate person to justify their attack on god's righteousness, can possibly NOT be a sin, before we can progress further. //
You're already sinning from my perspective, by your own statement:
//You don't make any exceptions for atheist counter-apologists who are charging god with great immorality (as I obviously do when I say God was authorizing marital pedophilia in Numbers 31:18).//
I wasn't "asking an unregenerate person to justify their attack on god's righteousness." I was challenging you to show that your unbelieving and uncharitable reading has any probability and therefore any relevance, rather than just being an unjustified rant and accusation.
//...it's a pretty safe bet that if you ask us to *justify* attacking god's righteousness, not only are you asking us to sin, the request is a sin all by itself.//
That doesn't follow at all. It's perfectly legitimate for Christians to ask non-Christians to show and justify their claims and accusations in order to expose how vacuous their views are. Sometimes the very attempt to do so can lead to the non-Christians seeing the errors all by themselves. Other times the Christians might need to show them the fallacies in their arguments. By direct refutation or indirectly by the use of leading Socratic questions.
//..the request is a sin all by itself.//
You might as well charge Christ with sin when he said to Judas and/or Satan, "What you are going to do, do quickly" (John 13:27).
Or Paul when he said in Gal. 5:12 "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" Or the angel who told John who told John in Rev. 22:11, "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
Learn to understand better how communication works rather than interpreting things in a woodenly literalistic fundamentalistic way.
Then YOU provide an example of how I, an unbeliever, could possibly have responded IN A NON-SINFUL WAY, to your challenge that I provide evidence and argument that God in Numbers 31:18 was authorizing child-rape. If you can't think of any possible way, then you KNEW you were asking me to sin, by hurling such a challenge at me.
If you can't do that, then your response here is nothing but anxiety-ridden double-speak. You clearly forgot about your own assumption that the unregenerate must sin in literally everything they do, when you asked me to do something other than repent and put faith in Christ. I can cite several Trinitarian commentators who insist that the principle Paul speaks of in the last sentence of Romans 14:23 ("anything done without faith is sin") is not limited to the issue he happened to be discussing in context, but covers everything a person could possibly do.
As long as you think EVERYTHING I do in life (apart from faith and repentance) is sinful, then logically, you think I'm also sinning when I respond to your challenges concerning my view of Numbers 31:18. Your Calvinist theology simply will not permit any other conclusion.
If you seriously think this is too "wooden" and "literal", then please describe some act that an unbeliever can possibly do (apart from faith and repentance) that would NOT involve sin.
//..the request is a sin all by itself.// ====You might as well charge Christ with sin when he said to Judas and/or Satan, "What you are going to do, do quickly" (John 13:27). ------------Was Judas' intended act a sin, yes or no? If yes, then to tell Judas "what you do, do quickly" is logically the same thing as telling him "the SIN you intend to commit, you should commit quickly". That's Jesus telling a sinner to hurry up and sin. And you have no rational basis to object, as your Calvinist theology already has god desiring (i.e., ordaining) such sin. Nothing is changed if god says "hurry up and commit the sin". All he is doing is saying "hurry up and do the act that I ordained you to do from all eternity". And yes, Calvinist common sense forces the conclusion that when you tell somebody to go commit a sin, THAT COMMAND is itself a sin.
If it would be sinful on your part to tell me to hurry up and commit adultery, how could Jesus be doing anything less than sin in commanding Judas to hurry up and betray the Son of Man?
"Or Paul when he said in Gal. 5:12 "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" ---------He's not asking anybody to do anything. You asked me to do something. Gal. 5:12 is thus Irrelevant.
"Or the angel who told John who told John in Rev. 22:11, "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." --------------If one Calvinist told another Calvinist to "let" a rapist to continue raping a child (i.e., "let the evildoer still DO evil"), would this be a sinful command, yes or no? Why should it be any different if the person issuing the command is an angel?
"Learn to understand better how communication works rather than interpreting things in a woodenly literalistic fundamentalistic way." ------------Your request is denied because the problem here is not my "woodenly literalistic fundamenatlistic way", but your wishy-washy commitment to Calvinism, which you were forced to fully exploit here in the effort to avoid going where your Calvinism requires. Those Calvinists who are actually scholars in their field reason about this matter in the precise "literalistic" manner you object to. Rev. Dr. K. Scott Oliphint (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He says:
"Since man is totally depraved, it follows that there is nothing that man is able to do or think that is, in itself, good—nothing that we can say is fundamentally impervious to the effects of sin. All of man, in every aspect, is depraved, sinful, in rebellion against God."---Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2013) pp. 88-89
John Piper is also a Calvinist and has defended Calvinism from Arminian opposition for decades. He notes:
"I agree with Thomas Schreiner that Romans 14:23 is introduced precisely because it stands as a sweeping maxim with profound biblical warrant: Acting without faith is sinning." https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism
So as a Calvinist, you either knew, or should have known, that a) as an unbeliever, it is completely impossible for me to act from a biblical correct motive of faith, and b) yet you still seriously requested that I provide evidence and argument that God in Numbers 31:18 was authorizing child-rape. You not only asked a sinner to sin, you asked them to sin in a way that would create the additional sin of blasphemy.
I'm not failing to understand how communication works. I'm simply clobbering you with your own bible, and using the very wooden literalistic hermeneutic that is responsible for producing Calvinism in the first place. So you lose this debate for the following reasons:
1 - You made the following request of me: "//What is your evidence and argument that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing the permissibility of marital pedophilia?"
2 - You knew perfectly well that because I was an unbeliever, my attempt to fulfill that request could not possibly involve faith or repentance, it could only be done in a sinful way.
3 - So you were asking me to commit a sin, i.e., to provide evidence and argument for an attack on your god's alleged righteousness (and you certainly think it attacks his righteousness to interpret Numbers 31:18 as god's approval or authorization of child-rape).
4 - Various Trinitarians over the last 2000 years have interpreted Hebrews 11:6 and Romans 14:23 to mean that ALL acts engaged in by the unbeliever, constitute sin. And indeed, there is no possibility, within a Calvinist framework, for a faithless unbeliever to do *anything* without sinning. If you think the bible allows for the unbeliever to put on their shoes without sinning, then apparently you don't appreciate what you were committing yourself to when you became a Calvinist. That might explain your infamous wishy-washy half-assed take on presuppositionalism, as if your mood ultimately determines whether you will argue consistent with what Calvinism requires.
5 - You believed that the proposition you were asking me to give "evidence and argument" for, was a proposition that Calvinism requires you to classify as sinful blasphemy. Your "van tilian" stance on presuppositionalism commits you to the premise that not merely is "god" the necessary pre-condition for intelligibility, but that god's alleged "righteousness" is equally foundationally necessary pre-condition to intelligibility. If I did anything wrong, it was to expect you to harbor all assumptions that are basic to Calvinism.
6 - The sinfulness of your challenge is necessitated by your own Calvinist theological presuppositions. Sye Bruggencate refuses to do bible studies with unbelievers because, under his Calvinism, he knows their expressing their views in such a study would constitute sin. His approach is obviously more consistent with Calvinism, than yours.
I don't have time to answer all your questions, or correct all your errors. So, I'll just quickly say the following. On your interpretation, when a Christian asks a non-Christian to do something, the Christian is sinning by asking the non-Christian TO DO ANYTHING. In other words, on your interpretation, it's a sin for me to ask a non-Christian "Would you be so kind as to pass me the salt and the Grey Poupon?"
Different Christian theological traditions have different views on these issues. On my understanding of Calvinism, non-Christians CAN perform the external requirements of the moral law, but not the internal requirements, or the deeper spiritual requirements. So, when the Bible commands us not to commit murder, non-Christians can perform that command by refraining from literally murdering people. However, in light of Rom. 14:23, nothing non-Christians do is perfectly pleasing to God and approved by Him because everything they do is tainted by sin and unbelief. Even when they do good works [in conformity to the external requirements of the law], say feeding orphans, it's not done out of love for God,out of faith in God, out of a desire for the furtherance of His glory and kingom. Nor done knowing that they themselves and other humans are made in God's image, and therefore have imputed intrinsic worth [in one sense extrinsic in the sense that it's externally God given, but internally imputed by being made in God's image]; and so ought to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely means to other ends. Also, there's not only the surface meaning and intent of the law, but the deper meaning and intent. So, for example, that the command not to murder, also includes the meaning and intent not to hate anyone undeservedly as if that person is not made in God's image (Matt. 5:21-22). So, in one sense, God can pleased THAT a non-Christian refrains from murder, but in another sense that refraining is not in itself pleasing to God in the deeper sense of receiving God's approbation, and so it will not receive a reward from God. I agree with the Oliphint and Piper quotes. You're misunderstanding of me and of Reformed theology make you think I'm contradicting Reformed theology. See the Three Uses of the Law in Calvinism.
//If you seriously think this is too "wooden" and "literal", then please describe some act that an unbeliever can possibly do (apart from faith and repentance) that would NOT involve sin.//
To say everything a non-Christian does is tainted with sin, and therefore is in one sense sinful, is not to say everything a non-Christian does is sinful, per se. That's why non-Christians can do good works in a sense, by fulfilling the external requirements of the law.
//If yes, then to tell Judas "what you do, do quickly" is logically the same thing as telling him "the SIN you intend to commit, you should commit quickly".//
The unstated and understood condition is that IF he chooses to do it, he should do it quickly. Again, you're reading the Bible fundamentalistically.
//That's Jesus telling a sinner to hurry up and sin.//
No, that's Jesus saying if you're so determined to sin, then do it quickly. There's an understood rebuke in the statement, as well as an implied reminder of his moral obligations for doing what's right. Despite Judas' intention to do what's wrong. Again, you're fundamentalistically reading the Bible. Jesus isn't commanding or recommending Judas to sin. CONTINUED BELOW
//And you have no rational basis to object, as your Calvinist theology already has god desiring (i.e., ordaining) such sin.//
Again, you're conflating God's decretive will and God's prescriptive will. What God ordains is distinct from what God commands. In our behavior and planning we are supposed to follow what God commands in His prescriptive will, and not be too concerned with what God has ordained. Especially since God usually doesn't reveal it. Though, there are times when God does reveal it. For example, Daniel knew from Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years of Babylonian captivity would soon end, and so Daniel prayed for its termination in keeping with the decree. Similarly, Elijah prayed for rain at the right time according to his own God given prophecy of protracted drought. In the case of Judas, he was nevertheless obligated to refrain from betraying Jesus. Just as God in one sense "decreed" [in a lower sense of decree than God's eternal decrees] that Hezekiah was about to die, yet Hezekiah nevertheless prayed and received 15 more years of life. In that way, and in that sense, he "violated" God's decree. Just as God "decreed" through Jonah that in 40 days Nineveh would be destroyed, yet the people repented and the destruction was averted. In that way they also "violated" God's decree [because prophecies are often understood to be conditional]. Just as Jesus "decreed" that it was not right for the Syro-Phoenician to receive healing for her daughter, yet by faith she nevertheless received it. And in that sense "violated" Jesus' decree. Faith and obedience can trump temporal divine decrees [i.e. in time and creation], but not God's eternal Decrees [decreed sans creation]. That's because we are to be occupied with God's prescriptive will of blessing health and holiness, rather than whatever He might have decreed in His eternal decrees.
//Nothing is changed if god says "hurry up and commit the sin".//
God didn't command sin. Also, there's nothing contradictory in God commanding something to be done quickly [cf. Acts 22:18]. Since, both the command and its fulfillment are all part of the causal nexus factored into God's decree.
//And yes, Calvinist common sense forces the conclusion that when you tell somebody to go commit a sin, THAT COMMAND is itself a sin.//
It is sinful to command or request someone to sin. But not all requests or commands are sinful.
//If it would be sinful on your part to tell me to hurry up and commit adultery, how could Jesus be doing anything less than sin in commanding Judas to hurry up and betray the Son of Man?//
Again, there was an implied rebuke in the statement. Like a good fundamentalist, you're not taking into account how human communication actually works. There's not just text, but SUBTEXT. People also communicate through body language. Even then, emphasis can make a difference. If I said, "I didn't steal your wallet," and if the emphasis is on "I," then maybe someone else did. If the emphasis is on "your," then maybe I stole someone else's wallet. If the emphasis is on "wallet," then maybe I didn't steal your wallet, but I did steal your Hello Kitty lunchbox filled with Pokemon.
// Gal. 5:12 is thus Irrelevant.//
No, there's an implied sarcastic command. If king said, "I wish for a mikshake," there can be an implied command for a servant to make him a milkshake. Given Paul's status as an Apostle, his statement is an implied sarcastic authoritative command.
//If one Calvinist told another Calvinist to "let" a rapist to continue raping a child (i.e., "let the evildoer still DO evil"), would this be a sinful command, yes or no? Why should it be any different if the person issuing the command is an angel?//
Fundamentalistic reading again. Rev. 22:11 is not an actual command, it's a decree phrased as a command.
//You not only asked a sinner to sin, you asked them to sin in a way that would create the additional sin of blasphemy.//
Not at all. By all measures of normal communication, my request implied that 1. I didn't think it possible or considered it unlikely that you would be able to fulfill the request [i.e. "Show me if you can, but I i doubt you can...", as well as 2. implying that only if you prove that your interpretation is likely then the conversation is moot and need not continue given my repeated statement that I don't have time for an extended discussion.
//If you think the bible allows for the unbeliever to put on their shoes without sinning, then apparently you don't appreciate what you were committing yourself to when you became a Calvinist.//
I've been a Calvinist in 1998, and I believed that BEFORE [sic] I was a Calvinist, and I STILL BELIEVE IT. Saying an unbeliever can't put on shoes without sinning, is not the same thing as saying an unbeliever putting on shoes is sinning. I affirm the former, and deny the latter because the latter can be understood to include Or exclude internal spiritual and psychological considerations. Putting on shoes is not in itself sinful. HOW and with what internal attitude and motivations one puts on shoes, can be.
//Sye Bruggencate refuses to do bible studies with unbelievers because,//
He's wrong. God says to sinners "Let us reason together" in Isa. 1:18. That involves sinners thinking through theological matters, and they will do that imperfectly, and often sinfully at first [and indeed all their lives even after they get regenerated]. David says in Ps. 51:13, "Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you." Jesus' statement in John 5:39 can be translated in the imperative or in the indicative. If in the imperative, then He's encouraging non-believers to study the OT. Jesus says in Luke 16:31, "He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" " Clearly, Jesus is advocating unbelievers to be studying the Scriptures. The not yet believing Bereans were considered more noble because they studied the Scripture in Acts 17:11. Philip helped the non-believing Ethiopian WITH HIS BIBLE STUDY in Acts 8:26ff.
Acts Acts 17: 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Isa. 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
I won't fix most of the typos because you can probably figure out what most the typos are meant to say. But just in case, I'll mention these:
//You're [Your] misunderstanding//
//I've been a Calvinist in [since] 1998,//
//If [a] king said, "I wish for a mikshake [milkshake],"//
//That's because we are to be occupied with God's prescriptive will of blessing[,] health and holiness, rather than whatever He might have decreed in His eternal decrees.//
On your interpretation, how can a Calvinist ask or command a Non-Christian to do ANYTHING if everything a Christian asks or commands a non-Christian to do is a sin for himself and for the non-Christian? Again, on your understanding of Calvinism, a Calvinist can't order a non-Christian to not "drink and drive." He can't order a non-Christian 7 year old nephew not to run while holding a scissors.
BTW, Reformed theology DOES affirm that non-Christians CAN do good works in a sense. That they can do things in conformity to the external requirements of the law. I'm not making this up. Read up on the literature. But they are not "good" in the sense of having God's full approbation. Mainstream Calvinism has a doctrine of Common Grace. Not all Calvinists hold to Common Grace, but most do. Common Grace teaches, among other things, that God works in non-Christians to often restrain them from sin (to varying degrees) so that they aren't as bad as they could be. And that because of the influence of Common Grace, non-Christians do a lot of good works [in the sense I said above]. Good works that sustain and build society and civilization.
In an argument a parent can tell a 13 year old son who's walking away in anger and about to slam the door or intentionally break a vase, "Go ahead and slam the door [or smash the expensive vase on the floor]" with both knowing it would wake up the kid's baby sister who is recovering from a fever. It's clearly not a command. There's a clearly implied prohibition and an implicit warning that if he did, he would be disciplined/punished with [say] being grounded, or not being able to play video games for a week. The same is true in Jesus statement for Judas and/or Satan to do quickly what he was planning to do. Judas ought to have realized that Jesus knew his secret intentions and therefore should have refrained from betraying Jesus. But he did it anyway, probably contrary to his better judgment. Another way to interpret Jesus' statement is that Judas didn't know Jesus meant what He said was about betraying Him and though it was about some other errand; but that Satan knew what Jesus meant, and knew it was said to him. So, what I said about Judas, then would apply to Satan. Satan should have known that he was being rebuked and ought not to continue enticing Judas to betray Jesus. But he did it anyway, probably contrary to his better judgments.
Since you don't have the time for extended debate, I won't extend something we've now rehashed several times back and forth. But I will propose one final objection:
Suppose I asked you: "Do you want me to go go to my nearest grocery store tomorrow and steal another person's car from the parking lot?" what would your response be?
There's a disanalogy in that Judas didn't ask Jesus a comparable question. Also, depending on our relationship, if we had been friends for a long time, you would know that if I said, "Why just one? Why not get a second one for me? Oh, and make sure it's red;" you would know i was kidding. Also, if I knew you, I might instantly know you were kidding too in your question. Especially if we both gave each other a funny look and facial expression when saying it. Conversations don't happen outside of a context, and body language conveys a lot. And the words spoken or written must also factor in subtext.
Allegedly, there's a famous statistic often cited is that:
- 7% of communication is verbal (words) - 38% is paralinguistic (tone, pitch, volume, etc.) - 55% is nonverbal (body language, facial expressions, etc.)
The exact percentages don't matter, and they would probably be different in different cultures anyway, but in all likelihood a large part [even a majority] of face to face communication goes beyond the mere words spoken.
What if I was a total stranger, and I asked you that question, and gave you every reason to think I was being serious? My question has nothing to do with Judas.
I would encourage you not to do it for the sake of the car owners and for your own sake. I would try to instill within you a recognition of how it would not be in your best interest to do so. Things along those lines. Then I might try to evangelize you. Try to show you that your real and deepest desires, when refined actually points to God and how God and his blessings both in this life and especially in the next alone can truly fulfill them.
I would encourage you for example, to read C.S. Lewis' sermon The Weight of Glory freely Online HERE.
I asked "Suppose I asked you: "Do you want me to go go to my nearest grocery store tomorrow and steal another person's car from the parking lot?" what would your response be?" You replied "I would encourage you not to do it..."
But supposing god had infallibly "ordained" everything and ordained for me to steal that car, this would force the conclusion that
God commanded me to refrain from stealing the car, but God, at the same time, wanted me to steal that car.
That is, God secretly wanted me to commit the same sin that he openly forbade. If you don't see a problem here, do you sympathize with the millions of fellow Trinitarians who do?
//God commanded me to refrain from stealing the car, but God, at the same time, wanted me to steal that car.//
I addressed this already. Scroll up and you'll see I wrote: //God wills willingly, not unwillingly. But that doesn't mean that everything God wills God fully approves of or is pleased with. To say that it is good that X shall happen doesn't entail that X is good in itself. Only that it is good that X will happen because [e.g.] of other second-order goods that might happen or accrue do to it happening. It's not good [in itself] for humanity to fall into sin. But God ordained it for other higher second-order goods like: for the sake of the greater blessing of the elect; for the greater glory of God; for the need for redemption through the incarnation; for the manifestation of God's grace and justice; etc.
God can, so to speak, see through two lenses: 1. a narrow view and 2. an all-encompassing wide view. From the narrow lens, any sin or evil is displeasing to God in and of itself in that limited context. But with God's wider lens God can see how a tragedy can be for the good in the long run. See for example the Star Trek TOS episode [S01E28] where even Kirk understood that it would be best for Edith Keeler to die to prevent the Nazis from conquering the world. Of course there's a disanalogy in that Kirk, as a human, has no business violating God's revealed will of preserving life by allowing a death that could have been easily prevented. Theoretically, if you could travel back in time, it would be evil and contrary to God's will to kill baby Hitler.//
//That is, God secretly wanted me to commit the same sin that he openly forbade. If you don't see a problem here, do you sympathize with the millions of fellow Trinitarians who do? //
Presumably, you're saying that there are other Christians who I would consider genuine Christians who disagree with me. If so, then yes I can understand their natural reaction. As the saying goes, we're all naturally born Pelagians theologically. So, it's a natural, reaction. But they ought to respond spiritually, according to Scripture and reason, not according to mere feeling and emotion.
Do, I see a problem? No. There is no immediate logical problem. Though, some might think there's an ethical problem that God would be "evil" to do such a thing. Well, I would tell you and those other non-Calvinist Trinitarians who are my fellow Christians that God did this with Pharaoh. God's decree was that Pharoah would not let God's people go. Yet, God's demand/command to Pharaoh was for him to let Israel go. So, the example you gave about God commanding you not to steal the car, and God decreeing that you would steal the car applies. You are to busy yourself with God's commands, not what God may or may not have decreed. You do yourself a disservice if you automatically assume you're among the non-elect. Predestination is a secondary issue. The primary issue you ought to deal with is the Gospel. Will you or won't you accept God's offers of salvation. You might object that you can't do that unless God first regenerates me. In Veritas Redux by John Edwards [not to be confused with Jonathan] wrote this pithy saying, "But as the Mariner cannot command the Wind, yet he can hoist up his Sails to receive it. So the Holy Spirit (who is compared to the Wind) is not at our beck; but we can do that, in the use of which the Spirit is usually convey'd to Men" (p. 372). I deal with this issues and objections here:
Humans often decree things they don't necessary like per se. For example, parents decree to allow their children to run, fall and scrape their knees [or slip on ice, or fall off a bike, or touch a hot bowl of soup even though they were told to wait, etc.]. They don't want their children's knees to be scraped per se [by itself], but allow it for other second-order goods. For example, because it's a lesson they need to learn to better cope with reality. If parents were "helicopter parents" who protected their children from making any mistakes and mess ups at all, that will actually harm their children because then they won't be able to grow up and navigate the world well.
You might argue that that's disanalogous, because the parents allow such things for their good. Whereas reprobation is for people's harm. In Calvinism, reprobation is often seen to have two aspects/elements, 1. preterition and 2. precondemnation. If one were an infralapsarian, then the former is unconditional, and the latter is conditional in that takes foreseen and/or foreordained willful sin into account. Even many (though not all) supralapsarians believe precondemnation takes sin into account. Those supralapsarians that don't, believe both aspects are unconditional. I slightly lean toward, supra, but if infra is right, then it more easily overcomes the apparent injustice of reprobation given that 1. the decree of election comes after the fall, and 2. precondemnation takes into account and is with respect to sin. Also, many Calvinists affirm there is a genuine sense in which God wants and desires all humans to be saved, including the non-elect. But that for greater goodS, only elects some to salvation. More on Calvinism at Monergism [https://www.monergism.com/].
I just finished John Edwards' Veritas Redux [published c. 1707?] yesterday, and he does an excellent job explaining why reprobation isn't unjust given infralapsarianism (if I recall, in chapter 3-5 of the first book). It's freely online HERE, but the scanned pages aren't always completely legible.
How could I possibly answer you on the merits, without committing the sin of word-wrangling (2nd Timothy 2:14)? How long can you and I disagree about the distinctions in god's "will" before the debate DOES turn into word-wrangling? You apologists are so busy assuring me that Paul there wasn't forbidding legitimate scholarly interchange, you never get around to explaining what the sin of word-wrangling actually IS.
To add and pile onto your question and dilemma, two verses after 2 Tim. 2:14 is verse 16 which says, "But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,17 and their talk will spread like gangrene."
But what does the verse in between 14 and 16 say? "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." Why? Because it's from the Word that one is to address errors. Much of the NT is polemical and apologetic. Some estimates are from 20% to 40% (or more). So, discussion, debate, dialogue and addressing heresies and errors is a major part of what the NT is about and is required of Christians and especially ministers. See also the MANY commentaries on the verse HERE: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/2-14.htm
Just EIGHT verses after v. 16 Paul writes in the same chapter:
24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,25 CORRECTING HIS OPPONENTS with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
In Chapter 3 of the same book: "16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
In chapter 4 of the same book, "2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, AND EXHORT, with complete patience and teaching."
So, whatever 2:14 means, it's not against tackling genuine and serious issues that need to be discussed. It's also addressed to ministers in dealing with believers, and you're not a believer. Also, we know that whatever 2:14 is about, it is the kind of thing that according to the very verse, "does no good, but only ruins the hearers." And likely akin to (if not one manifestation of which being) what's said two verses later (v. 16) about "irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,"
If you're arguing with someone like me just to argue, or to justify yourself or your persistent unbelief, it's to your own hurt [and wrong for you to do so because it opposes God and detrimental to yourself], but it's not wrong for me to address you because I do it with the motive and hope that you'll return to our father Adam's God, who is your God as well. Like every human, you are always in relationship with God, but in a hostile one. God says to you in Isa. 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith JEHOVAH: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:20 but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of JEHOVAH hath spoken it."
As Isa. 55 says, "6 Seek ye JEHOVAH while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near: 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto JEHOVAH, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith JEHOVAH.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Joel 2:12 admonishes: "Yet even now," says YAHWEH, "turn to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning." 13 Tear your heart, and not your garments, and turn to YAHWEH, your God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness, and relents from sending calamity. 14 Who knows? He may turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, even a meal offering and a drink offering to YAHWEH, your God. The NET translations v. 14, "Who knows? Perhaps he will be compassionate and grant a reprieve, and leave blessing in his wake --- a meal offering and a drink offering for you to offer to the LORD your God!"
Ps. 145: 8 The LORD is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. 9 The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.
A Call to the Unconverted to Turn and Live by Richard BaxterLINK
Alarm to the Unconverted by Joseph Alleine (Modernized) LINK
You need to explain what "word-wrangling" is, to ensure that it is not committed.
And you overlook the fact that you can still do all of the "error-correcting" that you find in the context, without wrangling words. All you have to do is tell the heretic or unbeliever what a biblical word means. You are not allowed to dispute that meaning with them. Sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to misinterpret the context by having Paul allow to you the very thing he prohibited in v. 14. You always stay away from the question of what specifically v. 14 means, because you know the only coherent notion of "word-wrangling" that is prohibited there, is the very type that characterizes the very type of apologetics that the church has engaged in for 2000 years. Sorry, but whatever it means to correct heretics and unbelievers, you are NOT allowed to "wrangle words" with them. I realize no modern Christian fundamentalist like yourself wishes to admit that Paul prohibited something that the church has routinely viewed as holy practice for 2000 years, but that's the brakes.
Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias. I reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so I just laugh when you pretend that I must engage the "whole counsel of god" merely to know what a single verse meant.
I guess I have to spell it out for you explicitly. I said the passage is about Paul telling Timothy to "remind THEM" [i.e. ***CHRISTIANS***] not to quarrel about words. The passage is about CHRISTIAN sanctification. Not about doing apologetics with non-Christians. It's about how Christians who already profess to be submitting to the Lordship of Christ are bound by covenant to behave properly. Which includes not quarreling about insignificant issues given their profession of faith. It's not tell us that we should expect non-Christians to behave like Christians. Of course non-Christians are going to quarrel about words and Christianity. That's what apologetics often [not always] entails, viz., engaging non-Christians in their wrangling/quarreling. At the same time, Jesus said not to "...give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you" [Matt. 7:6] There comes a point where in apologetical/evangelistic encounters when non-Christians start proving themselves dogs/pigs. I'm reminded of these quotes:
“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”- John Calvin
"If you argue with a dog or a pig five hours every day, even if you are always right, it does not mean that you are spiritual or intelligent. In the end, you are just as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel. Thus Jesus said, do not throw your pearls down before swine, because they will not appreciate your insights and good intentions, but they will turn to attack you instead. If it is unwise to invest too much time in these people, it is just as unwise to settle into a defensive position, because when there is nothing to discourage their attacks, and when they are not forced to put their own eternal welfare on the line, they will continue to derive a sense of excitement and accomplishment from the interaction."- Vincent Cheung, in "Hero" p. 70 [2022 edition]
"You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks"- Winston Churchill
//All you have to do is tell the heretic or unbeliever what a biblical word means.//
I've indulged you this far because I pity your lost state. But I don't have infinite time or patience. There's no pressure on me. I don't absolutely have to do any of that. It would do you good to read Chueng's article on apologetics:
Also, because I don't "have" to do anything you're claiming, it was sufficient for me to have given you a link to other commentaries, as I did. Here it is again: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/2-14.htm
//Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias.//
That's ludicrous. I appealed to the VERY NEXT VERSE [v. 15], and then just 9 verses later [v. 24] IN THE SAME CHAPTER, as well as the next chapter [3:16], and the chapter after that [4:2].
//I reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so I just laugh when you pretend that I must engage the "whole counsel of god" merely to know what a single verse meant.//
There are free online commentaries and lexicons online. I don't "have" to do any of that. You assume I have to convince you before you're bound by the testimony of Scripture. I'm a Calvinist who believes in the self-attesting & self-authenticating nature of Scripture. As you read it you become more culpable irrespective of whether I make a good argument or not.
Here's the most relevant part of Cheung's *article* as to why I don't HAVE to answer you in the ways you claim: //...Moreover, although a defense could surely consist of philosophical arguments, it is impossible that Peter had only this, or even mainly this, in mind. What kind of philosophical argument would the typical slave or a house wife at that time offer against an interrogator or authority figure? Consider how they answered. The early disciples referred to the scriptures, and said that their beliefs and actions merely followed what the prophets said. And they just as readily referred to their visions and miracles as their answer to official interrogation. Why am I doing this? Paul would say, “Because Jesus appeared to me and told me to do this.” He answered this way even though he knew more scriptures and arguments than we do. Nowadays there are people who have been converted by visions and dreams of Jesus. Are they wrong if they offer this as the reason for their hope in Jesus? Do they disobey 1 Peter 3:15? Certainly, they do not. The elite apologists would regard them like the cults. But these apologists are the ones treating this text like the cults they oppose.
The verse teaches us to state the reason for our hope in Jesus, not to state the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus. We can appeal to the scriptures and preach the gospel to those who interrogate us, but the verse itself only tells us to state the reason why we believe or how we have come to believe. It does not say that our answer must prove the truth of the Christian faith to the other person’s satisfaction. The verse itself does not require one to develop an entire system of apologetics. One might say, “I was lost in sin, but one day Jesus appeared to me and revealed himself as the Son of God, and I believed in him. This is the same Jesus that the Bible teaches.” Another might say, “I was a cripple from birth. I had never walked. One day a preacher laid his hands on me in the name of Jesus, and I was healed. I gave my life to Jesus, and confessed him as Lord and God, the Savior of the world.” Then another might say, “I was a thief and a murderer. But one day I found a gospel tract and read it. It dawned on me that I was a sinner and that Jesus Christ came to save me. I believed on him and I was changed.” All these answers would satisfy what 1 Peter 3:15 requires. Each person stated his reason for his hope in Christ. CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE The other person might or might not be convinced, but the Christian offered his answer in each instance. Now if someone became a Christian because he had read a 600-page book on Christian apologetics, filled with technical arguments, equations, or what-not, then that would be his reason. But he cannot insist that other people must offer the same kind of reason, and most of the answers and conversions in the Bible itself are not associated with this kind.
In hijacking this verse to exclusively endorse intricate systems of apologetics, Christian teachers have undermined legitimate and much more common reasons for faith. Many have even given the impression that a person’s original reason for faith is defective, and that he must place his faith on this other foundation of academic apologetics. But as long as the foundation consists of a faith in Christ that agrees with the gospel, it is legitimate. We could add a bunch of arguments to support it, but these would not be the reason for the person’s faith. They would be the weapons he uses to engage enemies of the faith, but these are not the reason for his own faith in Christ. In distorting this verse about apologetics, in order to teach apologetics, the teachers of apologetics end up destroying the very kind of apologetics that Peter encourages in this verse. We ourselves offer a most powerful system of apologetics. It is biblical to offer intellectual arguments for the Christian faith, even the most intricate philosophical arguments, but this is more directly justified by other portions of Scripture, because 1 Peter 3:15 is not talking about this. We may use the verse as a general endorsement for apologetics, but if in the process we lose sight of the main point of the verse, then it is time to perform some of that fancy apologetics against ourselves. To put it another way, only the people who acknowledge the main point of the verse has the right to make a broader application of it, because they are less likely to subvert the original intent to push their own agenda. // END QUOTE
The ending paragraphs from Cheung's article on 1 Pet. 3:15: //...The standard charter for Christian apologetics is fraudulent, based on a distortion of Scripture. Naturally, the product is defective. Teachers of apologetics have been such bumbling idiots that they have created a burden that everyone else must carry. For example, I have had unbelievers attempt to use 1 Peter 3:15 to force me to engage with them, and to do it on their terms and at their convenience. This text does not allow them to make this demand, but they attempt to exploit how Christians use the verse. I know the truth about this verse, so I turn it back against them to show that they are illiterate fools who are too stupid to challenge me or the Christian faith. But of course, by doing so I have also exposed practically all other Christians as incompetent. This is not my fault. Blame the teachers of apologetics and the biblical scholars.
A Christian should be ready to answer someone like a government agent about his faith when he is interrogated, but Scripture does not mean that any ordinary citizen has the right to compel a Christian to answer for his faith on the non-Christian’s terms and the non-Christian’s schedule, and to do it all with “gentleness and respect.” When sinners try to manipulate me with this verse, I have them exactly where I want them. I seize them by their throats and crush them, and they are destroyed. But they are merely using the Christian interpretation of the verse.
This distortion on 1 Peter 3:15 is not trivial, but very destructive for apologetics. It offers ammunition to non-Christians to manipulate believers, to twist their arms to do something that the Bible never commanded, and to do it with a creepy effeminate style that the Bible also never commanded. Christian apologists have been the greatest enemies of Christian apologetics. Our understanding of 1 Peter 3:15 is obvious and straightforward, and undeniable. Why haven’t we seen other people teach this? The truth is that the teachers of apologetics are not very good at apologetics, and those who correct biblical distortions themselves commit biblical distortions. They do this because they have not sanctified Jesus as Lord in their hearts, and for all the apologetics they teach and perform, they are only pursuing their own agenda and tradition. // END QUOTE
I have agreements and disagreements with Cheung's theology and approach. I've enumerated them HERE.
part one [2nd timothy 2:14 is] Not about doing apologetics with non-Christians. -------- First, So under your own logic, you think Paul is condemning at least the constant word-wrangling that Christians engage in absent the presence of unbelievers. So if you don't condemn most Christian scholarship of the last 2000 years, you necessarily disagree with Paul, and insist that word-wrangling within the church can often be useful and can build up the hearers. But Paul neither expresses nor implies any exceptions to his desparaging comment about word-wrangling being useless and ruining the hearers. Youi don't have a choice, I am reasonable as an unbeliever to avoid any Christian scholarship that has one Christian wrangling words with another Christian. If Paul thinks spiritually alive people can be ruined by word-wrangling, he most assuredly think spiritual dead people can only derive something worse from word-wrangling.
Second, you have mischaracterized Jesus' comment about casting pearls before swine. He didn't attach any qualifications to it. Once you identify them as swine, you have no more choice, you are NOT to cast your pearls before swine. And yet it was years ago, when you first found out I claim atheism and then started strangling bible inerrancy, that you concluded I was swine. What will you do now? Moot Jesus' prohibition by pretending that Christains can never be sure whether their interlocuter is true "swine"? LOL How could you have thought me any better than "swine" starting years ago? Yet you continue to plod on and on as if you think the bible explicitly tells you to ceaselessly engage people who have borne abundant fruit that they are haters of god.
Third, Titus 3:9-11 explicitly tells you to avoid anybody who causes divisions, that prohibition is not qualified in a way that would authorize your interactions with me, and nothing in the context restricts this to just "Christians" who cause divisions. Unbelievers are often eqwually as capable of causing church divisions as Christians are. And yet you disobey that verse because you constantly engage me, a person you obviously view as either divisive or attempting to be divisive. Paul is even more explicit (and again without qualification) in Romans 16:17, which people are explicitly identified in v. 18 as NOT slaves of Jesus. Is this the part where you suddenly discover that unbelievers ARE slaves of Jesus...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?
"Which includes not quarreling about insignificant issues" ------No, 2nd Timothy 2:14 contains nothing in the context indicating the prohibited word-wrangling was a type that involved "insignificant issues", while the context does indeed indicate the prohibited wrangling was a wrangling about important doctrine (2 Tim. 2:11-13)
"It's not tell us that we should expect non-Christians to behave like Christians." -----------That's a useless observation since I never expressed or implied the verse was telling you to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians. The point of my argument is that an unbeliever could be reasonable, if they chose, to avoid interacting with you about biblical bullshit because the bible makes it clear that BOTH of us are sinning just as soon as the inevitable word-wrangling starts. All the other bible verses requiring apologetics efforts to be made, can be obeyed in ways that do not involve word-wrangling.
"At the same time, Jesus said not to "...give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you" [Matt. 7:6] There comes a point where in apologetical/evangelistic encounters when non-Christians start proving themselves dogs/pigs." -------You must have drawn that conclusion about me years ago when I started raking you over the coals over inerrancy and other biblical bullshit. Yet you ignore that I fit any possible biblical definition of swine, and continue interacting with me.
part two I'm reminded of these quotes: "If you argue with a dog or a pig five hours every day, even if you are always right, it does not mean that you are spiritual or intelligent. In the end, you are just as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel. Thus Jesus said, do not throw your pearls down before swine, because they will not appreciate your insights and good intentions, but they will turn to attack you instead. If it is unwise to invest too much time in these people, it is just as unwise to settle into a defensive position, because when there is nothing to discourage their attacks, and when they are not forced to put their own eternal welfare on the line, they will continue to derive a sense of excitement and accomplishment from the interaction."- Vincent Cheung, in "Hero" p. 70 [2022 edition] ------------Then you obviously disagree with Cheung, since you've identified me as "swine" years ago, yet you've kept up ceaselessly wrangling words with me. Your brother Cheung thus views you as equally "...as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel..." Nice going.
//All you have to do is tell the heretic or unbeliever what a biblical word means.//
I've indulged you this far because I pity your lost state. ---------Neither Matthew 7:6 nor 2nd Timothy 2:14, nor any other verse, expresses or implies that "pity their lost state" creates any exceptions to those apparently absolute prohibitions.
"But I don't have infinite time or patience." -----And you refute that with your clear inability to successfully resist your patented need to answer a single item with 6,000 difference referneces...as if somebody dropped you on your head too many times when you were a kid, and now you seriously think quantity can often be a good substitute for quality.
"Also, because I don't "have" to do anything you're claiming, it was sufficient for me to have given you a link to other commentaries" ------It's when you do more than give links to other commentaries, that you disobey Matthew 7:6. Those commentaries are pearls, and you continuously view me as "swine" within the meaning of that verse.
//Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias.// That's ludicrous. -------No, you quoted Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 55, Joel 2:12 and Ps. 145 in the effort to pretend that because these verses demand "reasoning", surely 2nd Timothy 2:14 cannot be forbidding you from "reasoning" with unbelievers.
//I reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so I just laugh when you pretend that I must engage the "whole counsel of god" merely to know what a single verse meant.//
"There are free online commentaries and lexicons online." --------You are still casting your pearls before swine.
part three I don't "have" to do any of that. You assume I have to convince you before you're bound by the testimony of Scripture. --------No, I'm only showing that my rejection of the gospel and refusal to engage apologists, if that's what I choose to avoid, is reasonable. Jesus never said jack shit about any New Testament or about 27 extra books being added to the Hebrew canon, yet you foolishly act as if the divine inspiration of the book of Romans is patently obvious. Your need to engage in dogmatic confirmation bias does not logically double as a way to get "truth". The Arminians are equally as confident in the blasphemous nature of Calvinism, as you are confident that libertarian freewill make a man into his own idol. Let's just say your blindly confident assertions about seriously contestable biblical issues doesn't have any effect on me, even if hearing yourself talk all big and bad makes you feel god is using you in a special way that only the members of your particular cult can "see".
I'm a Calvinist who believes in the self-attesting & self-authenticating nature of Scripture. As you read it you become more culpable irrespective of whether I make a good argument or not. ----------Then you are on the level of the atheist fool who thinks the book of nature is self-attesting, and karma is gonna get worse and worse for you the more and more you suppress the truth in the name of Jesus.
"The verse teaches us to state the reason for our hope in Jesus, not to state the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus." ------And yet "stating the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus" is precisely what Calvinists and other Christians always do.
"It does not say that our answer must prove the truth of the Christian faith to the other person’s satisfaction." -----The book of nature doesn't say I must prove the truth of atheism to you either. Did you suddenly discover your logic is laughably one-sided? Aint it funny that the kind of philsophical short-cuts nobody is allowed to make when arguing on the merits, must always be allowed to presuppositionalists?
"The verse itself does not require one to develop an entire system of apologetics." -------Nothing in the bible requires that, which is why I condemn the vast majority of apologetics and apologists as Phariseeical and Pharisees, who in the last 2000 years have made Christianity more complex than anything JEsus ever expressed or implied he ever anticipated it would become.
In hijacking this verse to exclusively endorse intricate systems of apologetics, Christian teachers have undermined legitimate and much more common reasons for faith. ------If spiritually alive people can so unjustly hijack a bible verse, you are STUPID to expect god to do anything better with a spiritually dead unbeliever, even if god renders him spiritually alive.
I'd like to discuss with you various bible-related issues that you likely haven't dealt with before, skeptical arguments that you probably won't find answered at Triablogue. I will also proceed in the discussion one point at a time, as opposed to simply trying to answer a range of different points in a single post. Care to engage?
ReplyDeleteWe can have the debate at your blog or mine, but I'd prefer just one since cross-posting while the debate is in progress I find intolerably tedious:
ReplyDeletehttps://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/my-general-challenge-to-annoyed-pinoy.html
I answered at barry's blogpost above: https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/my-general-challenge-to-annoyed-pinoy.html.
DeleteHave you read anything on numbers thirty one
ReplyDeleteWhat about it specifically are you wondering about?
DeleteThe skeptic interprets the "for yourselves" of 31:17 to imply justification for adult men to force prepubescent girls into marriage (i.e., rape, i.e., adult-child marriages, nothing new in the ancient Middle East). Since you don't want your "god" to be found authorizing anybody to engage in pedophilia, name your strongest reasons for saying this interpretation is "unreasonable" or "incorrect".
DeleteYou mean verse 18, I believe. I'm no expert on the OT, though I've read the entire Bible multiple times and have studied it for nearing 40 years. As I understand it, the phrase "for yourselves" means for marriage, or as slaves for servitude, or to be sold as slaves, maybe even to be concubines. Where in the passage does it say the Israelite men could rape them, or sexually engage them before maturity, or force them to marry them? For all we know, if the females absolutely refused to marry, then they would become slaves or be sold as slaves.
DeleteIt seems to me that rape is condemned in the Mosaic Law. Though there are some passages that critics claim allow it and even [allegedly] force the victim to marry the rapist. I disagree.
Also, Ezek. 16 describes in a parable how God figuratively found the Israelites like a baby and protected and nurtured her to womanhood. Then waited till she was sexually mature to marry her. If this sentiment went back culturally to the time of the events and commands of Num. 31, then there would have been no pedophilia.
In context God punished the Midianites for their sins. God could have justly condemned all of them to death. But it was merciful on God's part to allow some of the women to live. As a culture all of them deserved death. Also, keeping any of them alive would be risky because they could later rise up and take vengeance against the Israelites. That some were spared was merciful.
See the online commentaries on verse 18 here:
Deletehttps://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/31-18.htm
I won't be answering all of your points because that merely causes the debate to fragment and makes the later posts too long. Ensuring that we devote energy toward specific propositions is far better than trying to answer every point.
ReplyDeleteFirst, yes, I meant Numbers 31:18. Thanks for the correction.
Second, whether I have anything to say to you depends on how you characterize skepticism toward the bible-god. If you allow that such skepticism can possibly be reasonable, I won't have much more to say. I only do battle with fundamentalists who insult my intelligence by saying my skepticism of the bible-god is unreasonable. In this case, my skepticism takes the form of "In Numbers 31:18 God was authorizing marital pedophilia".
I'm a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, so there is a sense in which I believe all non-Christian worldviews are ULTIMATELY irrational. A corollary to that would be that all skepticism toward the God of the Bible is unreasonable. But I don't always argue from an explictly presuppositional approach. I often like to do apologetics in ways that appear like the average non-presuppositional approaches [e.g. Classical, Historical, Cumulative Case, etc]. Also, while I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, I don't believe it needs to be true for Christianity to be true. The truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Inerrancy. In which case, any real errors that might be in the Bible don't necessarily disprove Christianity.
DeleteWe've had long discussions before like the one on David. I currently don't have time for long discussions. So let's cut to the chase. What is your evidence and argument that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing the permissibility of marital pedophilia? Keeping in mind Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:12-13; Ezek. 16, and the book of the Song of Solomon [passim] give examples of waiting till physical [if not also psychological] maturity for marriage [and by implication sexual activity].
Also, let's not multiply threads. Try to keep your comments in this thread. You didn't need to create this new thread. But here we are in all its inefficiency.
DeleteAlso, as a skeptic, why do you care? Presumably you're an atheist or agnostic. In which case, you're likely a materialist. Most atheists are naturalists, and most naturalists are materialists. All materialists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are materialists. If you are a materialist, why care about pedophilia and forced copulation. That happens in the animal world all the time. In Christianity, humans are more than animals. But in a materialist view, everything is just molecules in motion. Matter and energy in flux. Given materialism, why should anyone care that one set of molecules affects another set of molecules? Given materialism, why doubt Eliminative Materialism and Mereological Nihilism?
DeleteEliminative Materialism holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, feelings, deliberations, decisions, intentionality, ratiocinations and acts of will aren't real.
Mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism) is the metaphysical thesis that there are no objects with proper parts. Equivalently, mereological nihilism says that mereological simples, or objects without any proper parts, are the only material objects that exist. In which case, there are no humans, but only subatomic particles.
Eliminative Materialism articles:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
Mereological/Compositional Nihilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism
You don't have to answer or address all those questions I asked above. I merely ask them for your consideration. We can focus on just Num. 31:18. As I said, I don't have lots of time to discuss. BTW, here's my favorite version of this lecture by William Lane Craig. Unfortunately, it's low in visual quality.
DeleteThe Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig:
https://youtu.be/XmHQPOB_TNY
You say "...my Calvinistic perspective..." at another blog. Do you accept as biblically justified, the following quotation from section III of the Westminster Confession?
Delete"I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
I'm perfectly well aware that the rest of the sentence denies that this means god is the author of sin, but one step at a time.
I thought you didn't want to change the topic?
DeleteThere are many different senses one can mean by "author" in the phrase "author of sin" as the late Steve Hays pointed
out on Triablogue.blogspot.com. Some Calvinists will reject all senses, while other Calvinists will affirm some senses and reject others. Suffice it to say that there are some senses that I have no problem with saying God is the author of sin. Other senses I'm hesitant to affirm, or are willing to affirm as last options. An example of an extreme view is Vincent Cheung's views [see his freely online book "The Author of Sin"]. He affirms God is the author of sin in EVERY sense. I'm open to that view [and a number of his views regarding God's sovereignty] as last options, but they aren't my default views/positions. They aren't necessary views to hold. There are other less extreme options available. Back to the topic at hand.
I ask again:
//What is your evidence and argument that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing the permissibility of marital pedophilia? Keeping in mind Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:12-13; Ezek. 16, and the book of the Song of Solomon [passim] give examples of waiting till physical [if not also psychological] maturity for marriage [and by implication sexual activity].//
I'm not changing the topic. I said "Ensuring that we devote energy toward specific propositions is far better than trying to answer every point". I'm going to use the Westminster Confession to help justify my viewing Numbers 31:18 as divine authorization of sex within adult-child marriages.
DeleteI also said "one step at a time". I was trying to preclude a discussion of "author of sin" because I don't need to get into what that part of the Confession meant, to justify my interpretation of Numbers 31:18. But you went off on a tangent about how various Calvinists intepret this "author of sin" phrase. One step at a time. This is MY argument, and I'm not yet needing to worry about what that phrase means. If I feel the need to use the phrase against you or to support my interpretation of that bible verse, I will, but not for now.
Next step: The WC says God "ordained" all things whatsoever. It does not make sense to pretend that an intelligent agent can "ordain" an act without also wanting or willing that act. Any standard thesaurus provides several synonyms for "ordain" (i.e., order, dictate, require, command, decree, etc), but nothing changes: It is equally senseless to pretend an intelligent agent can "order, dictate, require, command, or decree" that somebody perform some act, without also WANTING or WILLING that person to commit that act. THe second you pretend God is the special exception, I will accuse you of proving that religious language is, at least here, incoherent. You want an intelligent being to "ordain" without also "willing" the same act, and yet all evidence indicates this is an impossibility.
So unless you can show that god "ordains" sin without also "willing" it, then I am going to be reasonable to conclude that, because under Calvinism everything that takes place, including sin, happens in perfect accord with God's "secret" or sovereign will, no exceptions, ever, then the fact that men have raped prepubescent girls in the past will force the conclusion under the Westminster Confession that god "ordained" those rapes, and therefore, he also "willed" those rapes. I will then use "god wills child-rape" to proceed to the next step in justifying my interpretation of Numbers 31:17.
You moved the goal posts or at least equivocating. Your original claim was that "God was authorizing marital pedophilia" in Num. 31:18. But God ordaining something is not a public authorization and sanctioning of something. You yourself acknowledged that Calvinists refer to God's decree as " God's 'secret' or sovereign will." It's called secret for a reason. Because we often don't know it on account of the fact that God usually doesn't reveal what He has decreed or ordained. For example, God has ordained whether it will rain tomorrow in your area or not. Neither of us knows for certain whether it will rain there. Ordaining doesn't necessary entail authorizing. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. For example, in a sting operation a police captain might ordain or will or purpose a drug dealer to come to a meeting to sell drugs so that he can be arrested. But that doesn't mean he authorized the drug dealer to attempt to sell drugs. It's illegal to do so. In the same way, Calvinists distinguish between 1. God's revealed will of commands and prescriptions, and 2. God's will of decree. God decreed that Pharaoh would not let Israel go, but God didn't authorize Pharaoh to not let His people God. In fact, the oppose it was the case. God positively commanded Pharaoh TO let His people go. Calvinists distinguish between 2 or 3 kinds of God's Will. I distinguish between 6 kinds in my blogpost below:
DeleteDistinctions in God's Will from a Calvinist Perspective
https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/11/distinctions-in-gods-will-from.html
I explain my views more fully in that blogpost, but here are the Six kinds:
1. God's WILL OF DECREE [also known as "sovereign will" or "decretive will of God"]
2. God's WILL OF DEVICE [AKA "purposive will"]
3. God's WILL OF DEMAND [AKA God's "preceptive will" or "prescriptive will" or "revealed will"]
4. God's WILL OF DELIGHT [AKA God's "dispositional will," "will of disposition" or "will of desire"]
5. God's WILL OF DIRECTION
6. God's WILL OF DESIGN
Numbers 31:18 is part of God's revealed will, not God's will of decree.
//It does not make sense to pretend that an intelligent agent can "ordain" an act without also wanting or willing that act. //
//You want an intelligent being to "ordain" without also "willing" the same act, and yet all evidence indicates this is an impossibility. //
God wills willingly, not unwillingly. But that doesn't mean that everything God wills God fully approves of or is pleased with. To say that it is good that X shall happen doesn't entail that X is good in itself. Only that it is good that X will happen because [e.g.] of other second-order goods that might happen or accrue do to it happening. It's not good [in itself] for humanity to fall into sin. But God ordained it for other higher second-order goods like: for the sake of the greater blessing of the elect; for the greater glory of God; for the need for redemption through the incarnation; for the manifestation of God's grace and justice; etc.
God can, so to speak, see through two lenses: 1. a narrow view and 2. an all-encompassing wide view. From the narrow lens, any sin or evil is displeasing to God in and of itself in that limited context. But with God's wider lens God can see how a tragedy can be for the good in the long run. See for example the Star Trek TOS episode [S01E28] where even Kirk understood that it would be best for Edith Keeler to die to prevent the Nazis from conquering the world. Of course there's a disanalogy in that Kirk, as a human, has no business violating God's revealed will of preserving life by allowing a death that could have been easily prevented. Theoretically, if you could travel back in time, it would be evil and contrary to God's will to kill baby Hitler.
I was only using the WC and the Calvinist view that God wills all child-rapes, to justify rejecting your knee-jerk reaction by which you blindly assume that there is simply no way in hell that Numbers 31:18 could possibly be justifying sex within adult-child marriages. If I can be reasonable to say God wills all actual cases of child-rape, I'm very reasonable to reject the Christian scoffers and insist that when such a god gives such a command as Numbers 31:18, the interpretation that he is authorizing pedophilic acts most definitely remains on the table of viable possibilities, it is by no means "absurd" or highly improbable.
DeleteIf I had a history, like the Calvinist god, of willing millions of cases of marital child rape, and then you heard me instruct some gang that among the people they kidnapped, they should kill the male babies (Numbers 31:17) and "keep alive for yourselves the little girls" (v. 18), you would have abundant probable cause to think I was authorizing sex within adult child marriages, in v. 18.
There is no moving of goal posts. Reasonableness of interpretation does not demand restriction to consideration of grammar, context and genre. YOUR presuppositions may possibly show that my interpretation is at least reasonable even if not infallible.
You talk about my presuppositions. But they include the Bible's teaching of waiting until physical maturity for marriage and intercourse [as I pointed out in the Bible passages I cited above], and the Bible's general prohibition and condemnation of rape.
DeleteJust because God has ordained millions of murders doesn't entail that God authorizes or sanctions murder. The same is true about pedophilia. The burden of proof was on you to show that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing and sanctioning [by His prescriptive will] forced pedophilia, and you've not presented any evidence towards that conclusion whatsoever [at leasts so far]. Instead, you made category errors by conflating God's prescriptive will and God's decretive will.
Moreover, you're not merely supposed to refute a Calvinist understanding of the Bible, but generally a conservative Christian's understanding of the Bible. So, your attempts to show that Calvinism makes it less unlikely that God could give a command authorizing pedophilia in Num. 31:18 doesn't do enough, even if you succeeded. Because your positive arguments also have to address non-Calvinist interpretations of the Bible and conceptions of God [e.g. Arminian, Molinist, etc.]. Also, a logical possibility doesn't amount to a live possibility, or even a probability. Your burden is to show that it's more likely than not that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing rape and pedophilia. The verse is about virginity, and not age. This would include post-pubescent girls as well.
While the events of Numbers 31 takes place before the giving of the book of Deuteronomy, the book's laws might indicate some of the practices that took place during the events of Numbers. Deuteronomy prohibits covenants and marriages with the gentiles of the Promised Land [Deut. 7:1-3]. And when captives are taken in war, there's this command in Deut. 21:10-14:
10 "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive,
11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife,
12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails.
13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
The command is about women, not about prepubescent girls. There's nothing about marriage to or rape of prepubescent girls.
Remember too that 31:18 comes on the heals of the previous verses, esp. 14-16:
14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
15 Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?
16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.
Meaning, the incident of when the Israelites committed idolatry and sexual immorality with the pagans as a result of Balak's plot and Balaam's prophesying. The women who might normally be spared were killed because they participated in the pagan religious & sexual orgy. That's why the virgin females were exempted in verse 18 of Number 31 because they didn't participate in the orgy. Not because an authorization was given to rape prepubescent girls. Again, the verse is about virginity, and not age.
heals = heels
DeleteSorry, I keep getting a "comment too long" nag, so I've decided to delete most of my response, provide a little reply, and move on with further argument to justify my interpretation of Numbers 31:18.
DeleteFirst, I don't aspire to bible inerrancy, and since today's Calvinists often accuse each other of self-contradiction, there is apparently nothing the least bit unreasonable in my allowing for the possibility that Paul, no less an imperfect sinner than you, contradicted his own theology. It isn't like you could ever make the least bit of a compelling case for Paul being inspired by God to the point of infallibility/inerrancy to write the book of Romans. So if and when I say Paul contradicted himself in that book, I'm not alleging anything that is out of the ordinary or otherwise irrational. Nobody can make even a slightly compelling case that the Epistle of Barnabas is inspired by God, therefore, if I allege he contradicted himself within that single book, nobody will think such a possibility is unreasonable.
Second, Romans 7:7 has Paul explicitly DENYING that he could possibly have known coveting was a sin apart from the revealed law of god. Paul would not have known coveting was a sin unless the law had said "thou shalt not covet". That's a non-controversial position, for indeed it is through the law that one gains knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). That's one place I think Paul was, so far, consistent with himself.
Third, under Paul's above-stated principle, Paul would therefore not know that sexual relations with a child-spouse was sinful unless the revealed law had condemned it equally as clearly as "thou shalt not covet" condemns coveting. Unfortunately for you, in context, "law" for Paul does not mean "just anything about god you can possibly find anywhere in the Hebrew canon". Paul's quotation of "thou shalt not covet" is a contextual indicator that he was talking about Mosaic law, i.e., straight-forward statements from god that either command or prohibit a specific act.
Well, if you cannot know coveting is a sin without the existence of a revealed law directly prohibiting the act, such as "thou shalt not covet", then you also cannot know that sex with a 9 year old wife is a sin without the existence of a revealed law that directly prohibits the act, such as "thou shalt not have sex with thy wife until she is at least ___ years old". Ezekiel 16 does not contain such express commands, it only shows, at best, what sexual morality was normative for Jews living more than 700 years after Moses.
Being an advocate of biblical inerrancy, you will run to Romans 2 and insist that Paul taught that he can also know what sin is by consulting his heart into which god placed the "law". But a) I reject the non-essential doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and b) since Christian scholars have been accusing each other of self-inconsistency for centuries, there is nothing particularly unreasonable in me remaining open to the possibility that Paul was no different than a Christian scholar, and was very capable of arguing in Romans 7 for conclusions that contradict the conclusions he argued for in Romans 2.
DeleteI am only required to show my position is "reasonable", not "correct". For while one can certainly be reasonable to hold a "correct" belief, by no means does it follow that it is only correct beliefs that can possibly be reasonable. Your own non-absolute positions on bible inerrancy and Calvinism seem to indicate you don't think being "correct" is a necessary condition to achieving minimal "reasonableness".
If then you would show that my argument from Romans 7:7 is unreasonable, you will have to show that my interpretation of Romans 7:7 is not just wrong, but "clearly" wrong. I will agree that unreasonableness likely attaches to positions that are "clearly" wrong. But if the wrongness is anything less than clear, then whether the wrongness is also unreasonable, will likely remain an ultimately subjective judgment call.
You don't establish the unreasonableness of my use of Romans 7:7 by merely pointing to the heart-based knowledge of the law in Romans 2, shouting "biblical inerrancy!", then mumbling something about how idolatrous the hermeneutic of suspicion is. Good luck.
//Being an advocate of biblical inerrancy, you will run to Romans 2 and insist that Paul taught that he can also know what sin is by consulting his heart into which god placed the "law". But a) I reject the non-essential doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and b) since Christian scholars have been accusing each other of self-inconsistency for centuries, there is nothing particularly unreasonable in me remaining open to the possibility that Paul was no different than a Christian scholar, and was very capable of arguing in Romans 7 for conclusions that contradict the conclusions he argued for in Romans 2.//
DeleteYou haven't shown an inconsistency in Paul. You've only hypothetically posited a possible [even unreasonable] one. His statements are perfectly harmonizable. Also, Paul's statement in 7:7 echos and is anticipated by 2:12 which is only TWO VERSES AWAY from 2:14-15 about the conscience. So, why assume Paul was unaware of a possible charge of contradiction in his thought?
I wrote what I did below before reading the statement that you made above. I'll keep it mostly unchanged because it would take too long to restructure it, and the case nevertheless should be made given the presuppositional approach of doing apologetics by engaging entire worldviews. Also because you wrote:
//If then you would show that my argument from Romans 7:7 is unreasonable, you will have to show that my interpretation of Romans 7:7 is not just wrong, but "clearly" wrong.//
//...Romans 7:7 has Paul explicitly DENYING that he could possibly have known coveting was a sin apart from the revealed law of god.// //...under Paul's above-stated principle, Paul would therefore not know that sexual relations with a child-spouse was sinful unless the revealed law had condemned it equally as clearly as "thou shalt not covet" condemns coveting.//
Your interpretation 1. contradicts Paul's own teaching in Rom. 1-2 about innate knowlede of God and the God given conscience. 2. it also makes Paul contradict himself. By "know" he's talking about having justified and certain knowledge via public propositional Special Revelation that one is certainly under the judgment and censure of God for his sins and are grounded in reality, rather than that those feelings of guilt that one might have being anomalous. Though one might not have those feelings of guilt if the conscience [1 Tim. 4:2]. He's not denying General Revelation which includes the work of the law of God that's written on all human hearts [Rom. 2:14-15] such that men, even in a fallen and sinful state, can intuit some moral truths. In which case, some non-Christians [as well as Christians] can intuit the immorality of pedophilia [assuming the culture they are in isn't so depraved that it doesn't overly oppress the human conscience]. If General Revelation is such that humans can know from creation that God exists, and if they are endowed with reason that reflects God's omni-rationality, then they can infer from the world around them telos/purpose/goals. And so can come to intuit humans aren't meant to be mere sex objects. That children are to be loved, nurtured and protected. That the delay in sexual maturity is teleologic and meant by God to imply that children shouldn't engage in sexual activity in youth. The concept of General Revelation [& by extention "Natural Law" & teleology] didn't begin with Paul but has precedent [even if only in seed form] in the OT: Ps. 19; 104:24; Job 12:7ff.; Pro. 8; passim.
CONTINUED BELOW
//Paul's quotation of "thou shalt not covet" is a contextual indicator that he was talking about Mosaic law, i.e., straight-forward statements from god that either command or prohibit a specific act.// //Unfortunately for you, in context, "law" for Paul does not mean "just anything about god you can possibly find anywhere in the Hebrew canon". //
DeleteAny theologian can tell you that Paul uses "law" in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. Sometimes to refer only to the decalogue, OR only to the Torah, OR only to the Mosaic covenant, OR only to the actual laws of that covenant, OR to all of the Tanakh, OR to a principle; OR to the strict requirements of the law as a means of justification in contrast to grace; et cetera. Elsewhere Paul affirms the utility of ALL of the OT for moral instruction. You probably think 2 Tim. is Deutero-Pauline, I'll nevertheless quote it.
In the same book Paul says in Rom. 15:4 "For WHATEVER WAS WRITTEN in former days was written for our INSTRUCTION, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
1 Cor. 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our INSTRUCTION, on whom the end of the ages has come.
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
//... then you also cannot know that sex with a 9 year old wife is a sin without the existence of a revealed law that directly prohibits the act, such as "thou shalt not have sex with thy wife until she is at least ___ years old".//
But having proved that Paul sees all of the OT as a source of moral instruction,then what I said before applies. //Keeping in mind Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:12-13; Ezek. 16, and the book of the Song of Solomon [passim] give examples of waiting till physical [if not also psychological] maturity for marriage [and by implication sexual activity].//
Moreover, the Bible teaches us to protect and nurture children and orphans, and to promote human life and well being. Given that, and given that we know that girls [prepubescent and pubescent] who engage in sexual activity are physically as well as mentally harmed, therefore sex with minors is wrong and evil. For example, even pubescent girls who have started puberty have a higher incidence of death at birth and perforations between the wall of the vagina and the anus leading to life long complications [e.g. fecal incontinence].
Paul himself understood the principle of loving others as oneself [Lev. 19:18] in relation to marriage:
Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph. 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
// Ezekiel 16 does not contain such express commands, it only shows, at best, what sexual morality was normative for Jews living more than 700 years after Moses.//
But Deut. 21:10-14 was very close by comparison. And it's called "Deuteronomy" in English from the Greek "deuteros" (second) and "nomos" (law) because in a sense, it is a reiteration, re-statement and explication of the Law with some modifications and additions to the new/next generation who were to enter the Land. But it's not a completely new revelation or law, and so in some sense reflects the laws & practices in operation prior. So, the moral sentiments & sensibilities aren't entirely novel. Cf. Deut. 29:1-3; ch. 5; 1:1-5.
CONTINUED BELOW
//...name your strongest reasons for saying this interpretation is "unreasonable" or "incorrect".//
Delete//I am only required to show my position is "reasonable", not "correct". For while one can certainly be reasonable to hold a "correct" belief, by no means does it follow that it is only correct beliefs that can possibly be reasonable. Your own non-absolute positions on bible inerrancy and Calvinism seem to indicate you don't think being "correct" is a necessary condition to achieving minimal "reasonableness".//
Unreasonablenes is a low bar, and I can understand why you would want to keep it low. It's not unreasonable to posit that we're in the Matrix, but what's more interesting and useful is the question of likelihood and probabilities. Is your interpretation of Num. 31:18 more probably true or false? You haven't provided any evidence for it's likely truth, like someone might not have presented positive evidence for being in the Matrix despite it not being "unreasonable." Same with Paul's alleged inconsistency in the same book. Also & ultimately, what is "reasonable/unreasonable" are both a function of and rated by one's worldview. I don't find your interpretations reasonable in the Christian worldview, or even most non-Christian worldviews. I don't have forever. Cut to the chase and SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false, even given a non-Christian worldview. Given your own parameters you foisted on me, SHOW it to me only using the the Torah and the Semitic cultures at the time of it's writing and/or at the time of it's alleged events [if you think they indicate a false date of composition]. You probably don't even believe a Moses existed, or an Exodus and a conquering of the Promised Land. Why not just say that it was written long after [centuries?] they are claimed to have been and tell us what the real authors meant by Num. 31:18 given the Documentary Hypothesis.
TYPO correction:
Delete//Though one might not have those feelings of guilt if the conscience [[[is seared]]] [1 Tim. 4:2].//
Additional Note: Christian apologist David Wood is a psychopath and so doesn't have feelings of guilt. Yet, he nevertheless is able to know that things are right and wrong. See his videos and testimonies on YouTube. For example his shocking conversion testimony HERE:
How God Destroyed My Atheism (Christian Testimony)
https://youtu.be/jb2ggj9mKM0
Typo Correction:
Delete//assuming the culture they are in isn't so depraved that it doesn't overly oppress [[[suppress, not oppress]]] the human conscience//
//Paul himself understood the principle of loving others as oneself [Lev. 19:18] in relation to marriage:
Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph. 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,//
I forgot to add to that comment the following:
That given that, and given the Christian assumption [that you don't share] that the God of OT Judaism and Christianity are the same and therefore the moralities are essentially the same [even if the specific details of the law are different depending on the Covenant], then God would have expected Jewish husbands to cherish, be kind to, love and be considerate of their wives. Even the Law in Deut. 21:10-14 of marrying female war captives seems to reflect that (cf. Gen. 2:23-25; Prov. 5:15-19; Song of Songs). The OT seems to circumscribe permissible sex only within marriage or concubinage. Therefore, sex with minor would require marriage/concubinage. But if marriage/concubinage requires not harming but causing the other to flourish, then having sex with minors would be banned precisely because it would harm not only another person, but one's supposed hypothetical spouse/concubine. In other words, it would be incoherent and contradictory. Because, to repeat: Sex requires marriage or concubinage; marriage/concubinage requires no intrinsic harm; and sex with female minors entails intrinsic harm. You might ask me about sex and marriage with respect to male minors. That's a totally different topic. But it's not directly relevant to the topic at hand, viz., Num. 31:18 and your interpretation.
"Cut to the chase and SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false, even given a non-Christian worldview."
Delete-----------Why are you asking me to commit a sin? Nothing in the NT expresses or implies that god wants Christians to ask non-Christians to sin.
When Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:11 "Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our INSTRUCTION, on whom the end of the ages has come," in context He's talking about a narrative part of the Torah, and not didactic, prescriptive, or proscriptive parts. So, Paul did derive moral instruction from passages that were not explicit laws.
ReplyDeleteFive problems: First, your comment that "unreasonable" is a low bar, is your problem. YOU are the one who hurls the "unreasonable" accusation at me. As long as you allege I'm "unreasonable", I can sufficiently rebut this by showing my belief is "reasonable", low bar or no bar. You will pretend I need to be worried as to whether my viewpoint is "correct", but that is foolish, given that Trinitarians disagree with each other on nearly everything except the Trinity.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it doesn't matter how Paul uses "Law" elsewhere, I'm only interested in the nuance he intended in Romans 7:7. By directly quoting one of the 10 commandments in the verse, there is a contextual argument that he meant he would not have known coveting was a sin unless there was an EXPLICIT command in the physical Torah directly prohibiting it. That's not rendered unreasonable merely because Paul used "Law" in different senses in different contexts. How he meant "law" in specifically Romans 7:7 is all that matters. I reject biblical inerrancy, so I don't really care whether he stated otherwise elsewhere.
Third, Paul says "I would NOT have known..." in that verse. What exactly is he denying? It seems to me that his intention is straight-forward: He wouldn't know coveting was a sin unless the Law expressly forbade it. He would not have known adultery was a sin unless the Law explicitly forbade it. Thus, he would not have known that sex within adult-child marriages was a sin, except the Law had expressly forbade it. Nothing in the "Law" expressly forbids sex within adult-child marriages. There is also nothing in the law expressing the minimum age a girl must reach before God will approve of her having marital relations. I already explained that I'm not an inerrantist, and yet you immediately pretended that because my view of 7:7 was contrary to your interpretation of something Paul wrote elsewhere, surely I was misinterpreting 7:7. Jesus never expressed or implied that his followers must aspire to biblical inerrancy, and yet by using bible inerrancy to guide your interpretations, you are acting as if bible inerrancy is literally the key to proper theological knowledge. I maintain that if the Author and Finisher of your faith did not require it, it's probably because he didn't think it was necessary to either salvation or sanctification. And yet bible inerrancy infects literally everything you have to say about Jesus or the bible.
DeleteFourth, you laughably complain that the sex act with a prepuescent girl would cause injury and pain, thus we know the act is wrong. But a) it is your god that created the hymen, and thus must have wanted the vast majority of women to experience pain during first intercourse; b) if Copan and Flannagan are correct, Moses and Joshua did not wholesale slaughter the Canaanites, but mostly only "dispossessed" them, or shooed them out of the desired territory, when in fact the outskirts of the promised land was barren territory (Ex. 15:22). Your god has exactly ZERO moral objections to inflicting slow sustained misery upon children.
Fifth, you aren't solving the Romans 7:7 problem by running to Romans 2. Romans 2 does not teach that there is way, alternative to the Law, that somebody can "intuit" sin. Romans 2:15 insists that the work of the LAW is written on the hearts of unbelieving Gentiles. There are contextual indicators that he is talking about actual Torah (2:12, "without the law" cannot mean "without a conscience", but only without the physical Torah. Same in 2:14. The Jews rely on the "law", v. 17. They are not relying on a generalized moral conscience, but on actual Torah. Paul then mentions stealing, adultery and idolatry in vv. 21-22). Thus, 2:15 is not a catch-all that prohibits other possible acts that the "Law" doesn't get around to actually prohibiting. So when you attempt to conclude that on the basis of Romans 2, mankind can "know" that sex within adult-child marriage is immoral, you must still show the Law itself does indeed explicitly prohibit such act no less explicitly than it prohibits stealing, adultery and idolatry. You can't. Otherwise, you are using Romans 2 to get things out of the Law that the Law never delivered in the first place.
Once again, seeing in Numbers 31:18 a divine authorization for sex within adult-child marriages, does not "contradict" anything in the context (i.e., anything which Mosaic Law instilled into the Hebrews to whom Moses was specifically speaking in that verse).
Before I give a fuller response, what did you mean by this?
Delete//"Cut to the chase and SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false, even given a non-Christian worldview."
-----------Why are you asking me to commit a sin? Nothing in the NT expresses or implies that god wants Christians to ask non-Christians to sin.//
What do you mean by me asking you to commit a sin? I'm not sure what you mean. I have a suspicion, but I need your clarification & confirmation that you meant what I think you probably meant.
I posted a blogpost in response here:
Deletehttps://bibledifficultiesanswered.blogspot.com/2025/05/a-continuation-of-discussion-on-whether.html
You can continue the conversation in the comments there. I apologize for creating new threads here. Sometimes I accidentally do that when I respond using my cellphone.
"What do you mean by me asking you to commit a sin?"
Delete------------You asked or demanded of me: "SHOW me why your interpretation Num. 31:18 is more likely true than false".......Under your theology of presuppositionalism and Calvinism, could an unregenerate unbeliever even attempt to fulfill your demand without sinning, yes or no? You think unbelievers are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). You don't make any exceptions for atheist counter-apologists who are charging god with great immorality (as I obviously do when I say God was authorizing marital pedophilia in Numbers 31:18). So you first need to show from the bible, that asking an unregenerate person to justify their attack on god's righteousness, can possibly NOT be a sin, before we can progress further. If I am grouping myself with those mentioned in Romans 1:18-23 when I attack god's righteousness, it's a pretty safe bet that if you ask us to *justify* attacking god's righteousness, not only are you asking us to sin, the request is a sin all by itself. Can an attempt to attack god's righteousness possibly be done without sin, yes or no?
Just as you did with Paul, you're reading my comments in a fundamentalistically literal way. I was challenging you to give me a reason to continue this line of discussion; because if your interpretation isn't probable, then it poses little threat to Christianity. I said I don't have time for a long discussion.
ReplyDelete//So you first need to show from the bible, that asking an unregenerate person to justify their attack on god's righteousness, can possibly NOT be a sin, before we can progress further. //
You're already sinning from my perspective, by your own statement:
//You don't make any exceptions for atheist counter-apologists who are charging god with great immorality (as I obviously do when I say God was authorizing marital pedophilia in Numbers 31:18).//
I wasn't "asking an unregenerate person to justify their attack on god's righteousness." I was challenging you to show that your unbelieving and uncharitable reading has any probability and therefore any relevance, rather than just being an unjustified rant and accusation.
//...it's a pretty safe bet that if you ask us to *justify* attacking god's righteousness, not only are you asking us to sin, the request is a sin all by itself.//
That doesn't follow at all. It's perfectly legitimate for Christians to ask non-Christians to show and justify their claims and accusations in order to expose how vacuous their views are. Sometimes the very attempt to do so can lead to the non-Christians seeing the errors all by themselves. Other times the Christians might need to show them the fallacies in their arguments. By direct refutation or indirectly by the use of leading Socratic questions.
//..the request is a sin all by itself.//
You might as well charge Christ with sin when he said to Judas and/or Satan, "What you are going to do, do quickly" (John 13:27). Or Paul when he said in Gal. 5:12 "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" Or the angel who told John who told John in Rev. 22:11, "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
Learn to understand better how communication works rather than interpreting things in a woodenly literalistic fundamentalistic way.
Then YOU provide an example of how I, an unbeliever, could possibly have responded IN A NON-SINFUL WAY, to your challenge that I provide evidence and argument that God in Numbers 31:18 was authorizing child-rape. If you can't think of any possible way, then you KNEW you were asking me to sin, by hurling such a challenge at me.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't do that, then your response here is nothing but anxiety-ridden double-speak. You clearly forgot about your own assumption that the unregenerate must sin in literally everything they do, when you asked me to do something other than repent and put faith in Christ. I can cite several Trinitarian commentators who insist that the principle Paul speaks of in the last sentence of Romans 14:23 ("anything done without faith is sin") is not limited to the issue he happened to be discussing in context, but covers everything a person could possibly do.
As long as you think EVERYTHING I do in life (apart from faith and repentance) is sinful, then logically, you think I'm also sinning when I respond to your challenges concerning my view of Numbers 31:18. Your Calvinist theology simply will not permit any other conclusion.
If you seriously think this is too "wooden" and "literal", then please describe some act that an unbeliever can possibly do (apart from faith and repentance) that would NOT involve sin.
//..the request is a sin all by itself.//
====You might as well charge Christ with sin when he said to Judas and/or Satan, "What you are going to do, do quickly" (John 13:27).
------------Was Judas' intended act a sin, yes or no? If yes, then to tell Judas "what you do, do quickly" is logically the same thing as telling him "the SIN you intend to commit, you should commit quickly". That's Jesus telling a sinner to hurry up and sin. And you have no rational basis to object, as your Calvinist theology already has god desiring (i.e., ordaining) such sin. Nothing is changed if god says "hurry up and commit the sin". All he is doing is saying "hurry up and do the act that I ordained you to do from all eternity". And yes, Calvinist common sense forces the conclusion that when you tell somebody to go commit a sin, THAT COMMAND is itself a sin.
If it would be sinful on your part to tell me to hurry up and commit adultery, how could Jesus be doing anything less than sin in commanding Judas to hurry up and betray the Son of Man?
"Or Paul when he said in Gal. 5:12 "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"
---------He's not asking anybody to do anything. You asked me to do something. Gal. 5:12 is thus Irrelevant.
"Or the angel who told John who told John in Rev. 22:11, "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
--------------If one Calvinist told another Calvinist to "let" a rapist to continue raping a child (i.e., "let the evildoer still DO evil"), would this be a sinful command, yes or no? Why should it be any different if the person issuing the command is an angel?
part two
Delete"Learn to understand better how communication works rather than interpreting things in a woodenly literalistic fundamentalistic way."
------------Your request is denied because the problem here is not my "woodenly literalistic fundamenatlistic way", but your wishy-washy commitment to Calvinism, which you were forced to fully exploit here in the effort to avoid going where your Calvinism requires. Those Calvinists who are actually scholars in their field reason about this matter in the precise "literalistic" manner you object to. Rev. Dr. K. Scott Oliphint (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He says:
"Since man is totally depraved, it follows that there is nothing that man is able to do or think that is, in itself, good—nothing that we can say is fundamentally impervious to the effects of sin. All of man, in every aspect, is depraved, sinful, in rebellion against God."---Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2013) pp. 88-89
John Piper is also a Calvinist and has defended Calvinism from Arminian opposition for decades. He notes:
"I agree with Thomas Schreiner that Romans 14:23 is introduced precisely because it stands as a sweeping maxim with profound biblical warrant: Acting without faith is sinning."
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism
So as a Calvinist, you either knew, or should have known, that a) as an unbeliever, it is completely impossible for me to act from a biblical correct motive of faith, and b) yet you still seriously requested that I provide evidence and argument that God in Numbers 31:18 was authorizing child-rape. You not only asked a sinner to sin, you asked them to sin in a way that would create the additional sin of blasphemy.
I'm not failing to understand how communication works. I'm simply clobbering you with your own bible, and using the very wooden literalistic hermeneutic that is responsible for producing Calvinism in the first place. So you lose this debate for the following reasons:
1 - You made the following request of me: "//What is your evidence and argument that Num. 31:18 has God authorizing the permissibility of marital pedophilia?"
2 - You knew perfectly well that because I was an unbeliever, my attempt to fulfill that request could not possibly involve faith or repentance, it could only be done in a sinful way.
3 - So you were asking me to commit a sin, i.e., to provide evidence and argument for an attack on your god's alleged righteousness (and you certainly think it attacks his righteousness to interpret Numbers 31:18 as god's approval or authorization of child-rape).
part three
Delete4 - Various Trinitarians over the last 2000 years have interpreted Hebrews 11:6 and Romans 14:23 to mean that ALL acts engaged in by the unbeliever, constitute sin. And indeed, there is no possibility, within a Calvinist framework, for a faithless unbeliever to do *anything* without sinning. If you think the bible allows for the unbeliever to put on their shoes without sinning, then apparently you don't appreciate what you were committing yourself to when you became a Calvinist. That might explain your infamous wishy-washy half-assed take on presuppositionalism, as if your mood ultimately determines whether you will argue consistent with what Calvinism requires.
5 - You believed that the proposition you were asking me to give "evidence and argument" for, was a proposition that Calvinism requires you to classify as sinful blasphemy. Your "van tilian" stance on presuppositionalism commits you to the premise that not merely is "god" the necessary pre-condition for intelligibility, but that god's alleged "righteousness" is equally foundationally necessary pre-condition to intelligibility. If I did anything wrong, it was to expect you to harbor all assumptions that are basic to Calvinism.
6 - The sinfulness of your challenge is necessitated by your own Calvinist theological presuppositions. Sye Bruggencate refuses to do bible studies with unbelievers because, under his Calvinism, he knows their expressing their views in such a study would constitute sin. His approach is obviously more consistent with Calvinism, than yours.
I don't have time to answer all your questions, or correct all your errors. So, I'll just quickly say the following.
DeleteOn your interpretation, when a Christian asks a non-Christian to do something, the Christian is sinning by asking the non-Christian TO DO ANYTHING. In other words, on your interpretation, it's a sin for me to ask a non-Christian "Would you be so kind as to pass me the salt and the Grey Poupon?"
Different Christian theological traditions have different views on these issues. On my understanding of Calvinism, non-Christians CAN perform the external requirements of the moral law, but not the internal requirements, or the deeper spiritual requirements. So, when the Bible commands us not to commit murder, non-Christians can perform that command by refraining from literally murdering people. However, in light of Rom. 14:23, nothing non-Christians do is perfectly pleasing to God and approved by Him because everything they do is tainted by sin and unbelief. Even when they do good works [in conformity to the external requirements of the law], say feeding orphans, it's not done out of love for God,out of faith in God, out of a desire for the furtherance of His glory and kingom. Nor done knowing that they themselves and other humans are made in God's image, and therefore have imputed intrinsic worth [in one sense extrinsic in the sense that it's externally God given, but internally imputed by being made in God's image]; and so ought to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely means to other ends.
Also, there's not only the surface meaning and intent of the law, but the deper meaning and intent. So, for example, that the command not to murder, also includes the meaning and intent not to hate anyone undeservedly as if that person is not made in God's image (Matt. 5:21-22). So, in one sense, God can pleased THAT a non-Christian refrains from murder, but in another sense that refraining is not in itself pleasing to God in the deeper sense of receiving God's approbation, and so it will not receive a reward from God. I agree with the Oliphint and Piper quotes. You're misunderstanding of me and of Reformed theology make you think I'm contradicting Reformed theology. See the Three Uses of the Law in Calvinism.
//If you seriously think this is too "wooden" and "literal", then please describe some act that an unbeliever can possibly do (apart from faith and repentance) that would NOT involve sin.//
To say everything a non-Christian does is tainted with sin, and therefore is in one sense sinful, is not to say everything a non-Christian does is sinful, per se. That's why non-Christians can do good works in a sense, by fulfilling the external requirements of the law.
//If yes, then to tell Judas "what you do, do quickly" is logically the same thing as telling him "the SIN you intend to commit, you should commit quickly".//
The unstated and understood condition is that IF he chooses to do it, he should do it quickly. Again, you're reading the Bible fundamentalistically.
//That's Jesus telling a sinner to hurry up and sin.//
No, that's Jesus saying if you're so determined to sin, then do it quickly. There's an understood rebuke in the statement, as well as an implied reminder of his moral obligations for doing what's right. Despite Judas' intention to do what's wrong. Again, you're fundamentalistically reading the Bible. Jesus isn't commanding or recommending Judas to sin.
CONTINUED BELOW
//And you have no rational basis to object, as your Calvinist theology already has god desiring (i.e., ordaining) such sin.//
DeleteAgain, you're conflating God's decretive will and God's prescriptive will. What God ordains is distinct from what God commands. In our behavior and planning we are supposed to follow what God commands in His prescriptive will, and not be too concerned with what God has ordained. Especially since God usually doesn't reveal it. Though, there are times when God does reveal it. For example, Daniel knew from Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years of Babylonian captivity would soon end, and so Daniel prayed for its termination in keeping with the decree. Similarly, Elijah prayed for rain at the right time according to his own God given prophecy of protracted drought. In the case of Judas, he was nevertheless obligated to refrain from betraying Jesus. Just as God in one sense "decreed" [in a lower sense of decree than God's eternal decrees] that Hezekiah was about to die, yet Hezekiah nevertheless prayed and received 15 more years of life. In that way, and in that sense, he "violated" God's decree. Just as God "decreed" through Jonah that in 40 days Nineveh would be destroyed, yet the people repented and the destruction was averted. In that way they also "violated" God's decree [because prophecies are often understood to be conditional]. Just as Jesus "decreed" that it was not right for the Syro-Phoenician to receive healing for her daughter, yet by faith she nevertheless received it. And in that sense "violated" Jesus' decree. Faith and obedience can trump temporal divine decrees [i.e. in time and creation], but not God's eternal Decrees [decreed sans creation]. That's because we are to be occupied with God's prescriptive will of blessing health and holiness, rather than whatever He might have decreed in His eternal decrees.
//Nothing is changed if god says "hurry up and commit the sin".//
God didn't command sin. Also, there's nothing contradictory in God commanding something to be done quickly [cf. Acts 22:18]. Since, both the command and its fulfillment are all part of the causal nexus factored into God's decree.
//And yes, Calvinist common sense forces the conclusion that when you tell somebody to go commit a sin, THAT COMMAND is itself a sin.//
It is sinful to command or request someone to sin. But not all requests or commands are sinful.
//If it would be sinful on your part to tell me to hurry up and commit adultery, how could Jesus be doing anything less than sin in commanding Judas to hurry up and betray the Son of Man?//
Again, there was an implied rebuke in the statement. Like a good fundamentalist, you're not taking into account how human communication actually works. There's not just text, but SUBTEXT. People also communicate through body language. Even then, emphasis can make a difference. If I said, "I didn't steal your wallet," and if the emphasis is on "I," then maybe someone else did. If the emphasis is on "your," then maybe I stole someone else's wallet. If the emphasis is on "wallet," then maybe I didn't steal your wallet, but I did steal your Hello Kitty lunchbox filled with Pokemon.
// Gal. 5:12 is thus Irrelevant.//
No, there's an implied sarcastic command. If king said, "I wish for a mikshake," there can be an implied command for a servant to make him a milkshake. Given Paul's status as an Apostle, his statement is an implied sarcastic authoritative command.
//If one Calvinist told another Calvinist to "let" a rapist to continue raping a child (i.e., "let the evildoer still DO evil"), would this be a sinful command, yes or no? Why should it be any different if the person issuing the command is an angel?//
Fundamentalistic reading again. Rev. 22:11 is not an actual command, it's a decree phrased as a command.
CONTINUED BELOW
//You not only asked a sinner to sin, you asked them to sin in a way that would create the additional sin of blasphemy.//
DeleteNot at all. By all measures of normal communication, my request implied that 1. I didn't think it possible or considered it unlikely that you would be able to fulfill the request [i.e. "Show me if you can, but I i doubt you can...", as well as 2. implying that only if you prove that your interpretation is likely then the conversation is moot and need not continue given my repeated statement that I don't have time for an extended discussion.
//If you think the bible allows for the unbeliever to put on their shoes without sinning, then apparently you don't appreciate what you were committing yourself to when you became a Calvinist.//
I've been a Calvinist in 1998, and I believed that BEFORE [sic] I was a Calvinist, and I STILL BELIEVE IT. Saying an unbeliever can't put on shoes without sinning, is not the same thing as saying an unbeliever putting on shoes is sinning. I affirm the former, and deny the latter because the latter can be understood to include Or exclude internal spiritual and psychological considerations. Putting on shoes is not in itself sinful. HOW and with what internal attitude and motivations one puts on shoes, can be.
//Sye Bruggencate refuses to do bible studies with unbelievers because,//
He's wrong. God says to sinners "Let us reason together" in Isa. 1:18. That involves sinners thinking through theological matters, and they will do that imperfectly, and often sinfully at first [and indeed all their lives even after they get regenerated]. David says in Ps. 51:13, "Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you." Jesus' statement in John 5:39 can be translated in the imperative or in the indicative. If in the imperative, then He's encouraging non-believers to study the OT. Jesus says in Luke 16:31, "He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" " Clearly, Jesus is advocating unbelievers to be studying the Scriptures. The not yet believing Bereans were considered more noble because they studied the Scripture in Acts 17:11. Philip helped the non-believing Ethiopian WITH HIS BIBLE STUDY in Acts 8:26ff.
Acts Acts 17: 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Isa. 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
I won't fix most of the typos because you can probably figure out what most the typos are meant to say. But just in case, I'll mention these:
Delete//You're [Your] misunderstanding//
//I've been a Calvinist in [since] 1998,//
//If [a] king said, "I wish for a mikshake [milkshake],"//
//That's because we are to be occupied with God's prescriptive will of blessing[,] health and holiness, rather than whatever He might have decreed in His eternal decrees.//
On your interpretation, how can a Calvinist ask or command a Non-Christian to do ANYTHING if everything a Christian asks or commands a non-Christian to do is a sin for himself and for the non-Christian? Again, on your understanding of Calvinism, a Calvinist can't order a non-Christian to not "drink and drive." He can't order a non-Christian 7 year old nephew not to run while holding a scissors.
DeleteBTW, Reformed theology DOES affirm that non-Christians CAN do good works in a sense. That they can do things in conformity to the external requirements of the law. I'm not making this up. Read up on the literature. But they are not "good" in the sense of having God's full approbation. Mainstream Calvinism has a doctrine of Common Grace. Not all Calvinists hold to Common Grace, but most do. Common Grace teaches, among other things, that God works in non-Christians to often restrain them from sin (to varying degrees) so that they aren't as bad as they could be. And that because of the influence of Common Grace, non-Christians do a lot of good works [in the sense I said above]. Good works that sustain and build society and civilization.
In an argument a parent can tell a 13 year old son who's walking away in anger and about to slam the door or intentionally break a vase, "Go ahead and slam the door [or smash the expensive vase on the floor]" with both knowing it would wake up the kid's baby sister who is recovering from a fever. It's clearly not a command. There's a clearly implied prohibition and an implicit warning that if he did, he would be disciplined/punished with [say] being grounded, or not being able to play video games for a week. The same is true in Jesus statement for Judas and/or Satan to do quickly what he was planning to do. Judas ought to have realized that Jesus knew his secret intentions and therefore should have refrained from betraying Jesus. But he did it anyway, probably contrary to his better judgment. Another way to interpret Jesus' statement is that Judas didn't know Jesus meant what He said was about betraying Him and though it was about some other errand; but that Satan knew what Jesus meant, and knew it was said to him. So, what I said about Judas, then would apply to Satan. Satan should have known that he was being rebuked and ought not to continue enticing Judas to betray Jesus. But he did it anyway, probably contrary to his better judgments.
Since you don't have the time for extended debate, I won't extend something we've now rehashed several times back and forth. But I will propose one final objection:
DeleteSuppose I asked you: "Do you want me to go go to my nearest grocery store tomorrow and steal another person's car from the parking lot?" what would your response be?
There's a disanalogy in that Judas didn't ask Jesus a comparable question. Also, depending on our relationship, if we had been friends for a long time, you would know that if I said, "Why just one? Why not get a second one for me? Oh, and make sure it's red;" you would know i was kidding. Also, if I knew you, I might instantly know you were kidding too in your question. Especially if we both gave each other a funny look and facial expression when saying it. Conversations don't happen outside of a context, and body language conveys a lot. And the words spoken or written must also factor in subtext.
DeleteWiki article on Subtext
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtext
Allegedly, there's a famous statistic often cited is that:
- 7% of communication is verbal (words)
- 38% is paralinguistic (tone, pitch, volume, etc.)
- 55% is nonverbal (body language, facial expressions, etc.)
The exact percentages don't matter, and they would probably be different in different cultures anyway, but in all likelihood a large part [even a majority] of face to face communication goes beyond the mere words spoken.
What if I was a total stranger, and I asked you that question, and gave you every reason to think I was being serious? My question has nothing to do with Judas.
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you not to do it for the sake of the car owners and for your own sake. I would try to instill within you a recognition of how it would not be in your best interest to do so. Things along those lines. Then I might try to evangelize you. Try to show you that your real and deepest desires, when refined actually points to God and how God and his blessings both in this life and especially in the next alone can truly fulfill them.
DeleteI would encourage you for example, to read C.S. Lewis' sermon The Weight of Glory freely Online HERE.
Also, these two similar sermons:
Heaven by Edward D. Griffin
https://gospelmeals.blogspot.com/2020/05/heaven-by-edward-d-griffin.html
or here
https://web.archive.org/web/20161006020316/http://www.puritansermons.com/sermons/griffin2.htm
When I was a Child I Thought as a Child by Edward D. Griffin
https://gospelmeals.blogspot.com/2020/05/when-i-was-child-i-thought-as-child.html
or here
https://web.archive.org/web/20161122180010/http://www.puritansermons.com/sermons/griffin1.htm
I asked "Suppose I asked you: "Do you want me to go go to my nearest grocery store tomorrow and steal another person's car from the parking lot?" what would your response be?"
ReplyDeleteYou replied "I would encourage you not to do it..."
But supposing god had infallibly "ordained" everything and ordained for me to steal that car, this would force the conclusion that
God commanded me to refrain from stealing the car, but
God, at the same time, wanted me to steal that car.
That is, God secretly wanted me to commit the same sin that he openly forbade. If you don't see a problem here, do you sympathize with the millions of fellow Trinitarians who do?
Delete//God commanded me to refrain from stealing the car, but
God, at the same time, wanted me to steal that car.//
I addressed this already. Scroll up and you'll see I wrote: //God wills willingly, not unwillingly. But that doesn't mean that everything God wills God fully approves of or is pleased with. To say that it is good that X shall happen doesn't entail that X is good in itself. Only that it is good that X will happen because [e.g.] of other second-order goods that might happen or accrue do to it happening. It's not good [in itself] for humanity to fall into sin. But God ordained it for other higher second-order goods like: for the sake of the greater blessing of the elect; for the greater glory of God; for the need for redemption through the incarnation; for the manifestation of God's grace and justice; etc.
God can, so to speak, see through two lenses: 1. a narrow view and 2. an all-encompassing wide view. From the narrow lens, any sin or evil is displeasing to God in and of itself in that limited context. But with God's wider lens God can see how a tragedy can be for the good in the long run. See for example the Star Trek TOS episode [S01E28] where even Kirk understood that it would be best for Edith Keeler to die to prevent the Nazis from conquering the world. Of course there's a disanalogy in that Kirk, as a human, has no business violating God's revealed will of preserving life by allowing a death that could have been easily prevented. Theoretically, if you could travel back in time, it would be evil and contrary to God's will to kill baby Hitler.//
CONT. BELOW
//That is, God secretly wanted me to commit the same sin that he openly forbade. If you don't see a problem here, do you sympathize with the millions of fellow Trinitarians who do? //
DeletePresumably, you're saying that there are other Christians who I would consider genuine Christians who disagree with me. If so, then yes I can understand their natural reaction. As the saying goes, we're all naturally born Pelagians theologically. So, it's a natural, reaction. But they ought to respond spiritually, according to Scripture and reason, not according to mere feeling and emotion.
Do, I see a problem? No. There is no immediate logical problem. Though, some might think there's an ethical problem that God would be "evil" to do such a thing. Well, I would tell you and those other non-Calvinist Trinitarians who are my fellow Christians that God did this with Pharaoh. God's decree was that Pharoah would not let God's people go. Yet, God's demand/command to Pharaoh was for him to let Israel go. So, the example you gave about God commanding you not to steal the car, and God decreeing that you would steal the car applies. You are to busy yourself with God's commands, not what God may or may not have decreed. You do yourself a disservice if you automatically assume you're among the non-elect. Predestination is a secondary issue. The primary issue you ought to deal with is the Gospel. Will you or won't you accept God's offers of salvation. You might object that you can't do that unless God first regenerates me. In Veritas Redux by John Edwards [not to be confused with Jonathan] wrote this pithy saying, "But as the Mariner cannot command the Wind, yet he can hoist up his Sails to receive it. So the Holy Spirit (who is compared to the Wind) is not at our beck; but we can do that, in the use of which the Spirit is usually convey'd to Men" (p. 372). I deal with this issues and objections here:
Detecting and Finding God
https://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/detecting-and-finding-god.html
Counsel For Those Doubting Their Election
https://gospelmeals.blogspot.com/2020/03/counsel-for-those-doubting-their.html
Less related, but see also:
"Unveiling" The Hiddenness of God
https://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-hiddenness-of-god.html
Humans often decree things they don't necessary like per se. For example, parents decree to allow their children to run, fall and scrape their knees [or slip on ice, or fall off a bike, or touch a hot bowl of soup even though they were told to wait, etc.]. They don't want their children's knees to be scraped per se [by itself], but allow it for other second-order goods. For example, because it's a lesson they need to learn to better cope with reality. If parents were "helicopter parents" who protected their children from making any mistakes and mess ups at all, that will actually harm their children because then they won't be able to grow up and navigate the world well.
DeleteYou might argue that that's disanalogous, because the parents allow such things for their good. Whereas reprobation is for people's harm. In Calvinism, reprobation is often seen to have two aspects/elements, 1. preterition and 2. precondemnation. If one were an infralapsarian, then the former is unconditional, and the latter is conditional in that takes foreseen and/or foreordained willful sin into account. Even many (though not all) supralapsarians believe precondemnation takes sin into account. Those supralapsarians that don't, believe both aspects are unconditional. I slightly lean toward, supra, but if infra is right, then it more easily overcomes the apparent injustice of reprobation given that 1. the decree of election comes after the fall, and 2. precondemnation takes into account and is with respect to sin. Also, many Calvinists affirm there is a genuine sense in which God wants and desires all humans to be saved, including the non-elect. But that for greater goodS, only elects some to salvation. More on Calvinism at Monergism [https://www.monergism.com/].
A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism
http://www.romans45.org/articles/hypercal.htm
Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism
http://www.romans45.org/articles/sup_infr.htm
Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved by John Piper
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god
I just finished John Edwards' Veritas Redux [published c. 1707?] yesterday, and he does an excellent job explaining why reprobation isn't unjust given infralapsarianism (if I recall, in chapter 3-5 of the first book). It's freely online HERE, but the scanned pages aren't always completely legible.
DeleteHow could I possibly answer you on the merits, without committing the sin of word-wrangling (2nd Timothy 2:14)? How long can you and I disagree about the distinctions in god's "will" before the debate DOES turn into word-wrangling? You apologists are so busy assuring me that Paul there wasn't forbidding legitimate scholarly interchange, you never get around to explaining what the sin of word-wrangling actually IS.
DeleteTo add and pile onto your question and dilemma, two verses after 2 Tim. 2:14 is verse 16 which says, "But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,17 and their talk will spread like gangrene."
DeleteBut what does the verse in between 14 and 16 say? "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." Why? Because it's from the Word that one is to address errors. Much of the NT is polemical and apologetic. Some estimates are from 20% to 40% (or more). So, discussion, debate, dialogue and addressing heresies and errors is a major part of what the NT is about and is required of Christians and especially ministers. See also the MANY commentaries on the verse HERE:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/2-14.htm
Just EIGHT verses after v. 16 Paul writes in the same chapter:
24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,25 CORRECTING HIS OPPONENTS with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
In Chapter 3 of the same book: "16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
In chapter 4 of the same book, "2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, AND EXHORT, with complete patience and teaching."
So, whatever 2:14 means, it's not against tackling genuine and serious issues that need to be discussed. It's also addressed to ministers in dealing with believers, and you're not a believer. Also, we know that whatever 2:14 is about, it is the kind of thing that according to the very verse, "does no good, but only ruins the hearers." And likely akin to (if not one manifestation of which being) what's said two verses later (v. 16) about "irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,"
CONT. BELOW
If you're arguing with someone like me just to argue, or to justify yourself or your persistent unbelief, it's to your own hurt [and wrong for you to do so because it opposes God and detrimental to yourself], but it's not wrong for me to address you because I do it with the motive and hope that you'll return to our father Adam's God, who is your God as well. Like every human, you are always in relationship with God, but in a hostile one. God says to you in Isa. 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith JEHOVAH: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:20 but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of JEHOVAH hath spoken it."
DeleteAs Isa. 55 says, "6 Seek ye JEHOVAH while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near: 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto JEHOVAH, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith JEHOVAH.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Joel 2:12 admonishes:
"Yet even now," says YAHWEH, "turn to me with all your heart,
and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning."
13 Tear your heart, and not your garments,
and turn to YAHWEH, your God;
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness,
and relents from sending calamity.
14 Who knows? He may turn and relent,
and leave a blessing behind him,
even a meal offering and a drink offering to YAHWEH, your God.
The NET translations v. 14, "Who knows?
Perhaps he will be compassionate and grant a reprieve,
and leave blessing in his wake ---
a meal offering and a drink offering for you to offer to the LORD your God!"
Ps. 145:
8 The LORD is gracious and merciful;
Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness.
9 The LORD is good to all,
And His mercies are over all His works.
A Call to the Unconverted to Turn and Live by Richard Baxter LINK
Alarm to the Unconverted by Joseph Alleine (Modernized) LINK
You need to explain what "word-wrangling" is, to ensure that it is not committed.
DeleteAnd you overlook the fact that you can still do all of the "error-correcting" that you find in the context, without wrangling words. All you have to do is tell the heretic or unbeliever what a biblical word means. You are not allowed to dispute that meaning with them. Sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to misinterpret the context by having Paul allow to you the very thing he prohibited in v. 14. You always stay away from the question of what specifically v. 14 means, because you know the only coherent notion of "word-wrangling" that is prohibited there, is the very type that characterizes the very type of apologetics that the church has engaged in for 2000 years. Sorry, but whatever it means to correct heretics and unbelievers, you are NOT allowed to "wrangle words" with them. I realize no modern Christian fundamentalist like yourself wishes to admit that Paul prohibited something that the church has routinely viewed as holy practice for 2000 years, but that's the brakes.
Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias. I reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so I just laugh when you pretend that I must engage the "whole counsel of god" merely to know what a single verse meant.
I guess I have to spell it out for you explicitly. I said the passage is about Paul telling Timothy to "remind THEM" [i.e. ***CHRISTIANS***] not to quarrel about words. The passage is about CHRISTIAN sanctification. Not about doing apologetics with non-Christians. It's about how Christians who already profess to be submitting to the Lordship of Christ are bound by covenant to behave properly. Which includes not quarreling about insignificant issues given their profession of faith. It's not tell us that we should expect non-Christians to behave like Christians. Of course non-Christians are going to quarrel about words and Christianity. That's what apologetics often [not always] entails, viz., engaging non-Christians in their wrangling/quarreling. At the same time, Jesus said not to "...give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you" [Matt. 7:6] There comes a point where in apologetical/evangelistic encounters when non-Christians start proving themselves dogs/pigs. I'm reminded of these quotes:
Delete“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”- John Calvin
"If you argue with a dog or a pig five hours every day, even if you are always right, it does not mean that you are spiritual or intelligent. In the end, you are just as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel. Thus Jesus said, do not throw your pearls down before swine, because they will not appreciate your insights and good intentions, but they will turn to attack you instead. If it is unwise to invest too much time in these people, it is just as unwise to settle into a defensive position, because when there is nothing to discourage their attacks, and when they are not forced to put their own eternal welfare on the line, they will continue to derive a sense of excitement and
accomplishment from the interaction."- Vincent Cheung, in "Hero" p. 70 [2022 edition]
"You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks"- Winston Churchill
//All you have to do is tell the heretic or unbeliever what a biblical word means.//
I've indulged you this far because I pity your lost state. But I don't have infinite time or patience. There's no pressure on me. I don't absolutely have to do any of that. It would do you good to read Chueng's article on apologetics:
The Truth About 1 Peter 3:15 by Vincent Cheung
https://www.vincentcheung.com/2020/03/07/the-truth-about-1-peter-315/
Also, because I don't "have" to do anything you're claiming, it was sufficient for me to have given you a link to other commentaries, as I did. Here it is again:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/2-14.htm
//Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias.//
That's ludicrous. I appealed to the VERY NEXT VERSE [v. 15], and then just 9 verses later [v. 24] IN THE SAME CHAPTER, as well as the next chapter [3:16], and the chapter after that [4:2].
//I reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so I just laugh when you pretend that I must engage the "whole counsel of god" merely to know what a single verse meant.//
There are free online commentaries and lexicons online. I don't "have" to do any of that. You assume I have to convince you before you're bound by the testimony of Scripture. I'm a Calvinist who believes in the self-attesting & self-authenticating nature of Scripture. As you read it you become more culpable irrespective of whether I make a good argument or not.
Here's the most relevant part of Cheung's *article* as to why I don't HAVE to answer you in the ways you claim: //...Moreover, although a defense could surely consist of philosophical arguments, it is impossible that Peter had only this, or even mainly this, in mind. What kind of philosophical argument would the typical slave or a house wife at that time offer against an interrogator or authority figure? Consider how they answered. The early disciples referred to the scriptures, and said that their beliefs and actions merely followed what the prophets said. And they just as readily referred to their visions and miracles as their answer to official interrogation. Why am I doing this? Paul would say, “Because Jesus appeared to me and told me to do this.” He answered this way even though he knew more scriptures and arguments than we do. Nowadays there are people who have been converted by visions and dreams of Jesus. Are they wrong if they offer this as the reason for their hope in Jesus? Do they disobey 1 Peter 3:15? Certainly, they do not. The elite apologists would regard them like the cults. But these apologists are the ones treating this text like the cults they oppose.
DeleteThe verse teaches us to state the reason for our hope in Jesus, not to state the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus. We can appeal to the scriptures and preach the gospel to those who interrogate us, but the verse itself only tells us to state the reason why we believe or how we have come to believe. It does not say that our answer must prove the truth of the Christian faith to the other person’s satisfaction. The verse itself does not require one to develop an entire system of apologetics. One might say, “I was lost in sin, but one day Jesus appeared to me and revealed himself as the Son of God, and I believed in him. This is the same Jesus that the Bible teaches.” Another might say, “I was a cripple from birth. I had never walked. One day a preacher laid his hands on me in the name of Jesus, and I was healed. I gave my life to Jesus, and confessed him as Lord and God, the Savior of the world.” Then another might say, “I was a thief and a murderer. But one day I found a gospel tract and read it. It dawned on me that I was a sinner and that Jesus Christ came to save me. I believed on him and I was changed.” All these answers would satisfy what 1 Peter 3:15 requires. Each person stated his reason for his hope in Christ.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
DeleteThe other person might or might not be convinced, but the Christian offered his answer in each instance. Now if someone became a Christian because he had read a 600-page book on Christian apologetics, filled with technical arguments, equations, or what-not, then that would be his reason. But he cannot insist that other people must offer the same kind of reason, and most of the answers and conversions in the Bible itself are not associated with this kind.
In hijacking this verse to exclusively endorse intricate systems of apologetics, Christian teachers have undermined legitimate and much more common reasons for faith. Many have even given the impression that a person’s original reason for faith is defective, and that he must place his faith on this other foundation of academic apologetics. But as long as the foundation consists of a faith in Christ that agrees with the gospel, it is legitimate. We could add a bunch of arguments to support it, but these would not be the reason for the person’s faith. They would be the weapons he uses to engage enemies of the faith, but these are not the reason for his own faith in Christ. In distorting this verse about apologetics, in order to teach apologetics, the teachers of apologetics end up destroying the very kind of apologetics that Peter encourages in this verse. We ourselves offer a most powerful system of apologetics. It is biblical to offer intellectual arguments for the Christian faith, even the most intricate philosophical arguments, but this is more directly justified by other portions of Scripture, because 1 Peter 3:15 is not talking about this. We may use the verse as a general endorsement for apologetics, but if in the process we lose sight of the main point of the verse, then it is time to perform some of that fancy apologetics against ourselves. To put it another way, only the people who acknowledge the main point of the verse has the right to make a broader application of it, because they are less likely to subvert the original intent to push their own agenda. // END QUOTE
The ending paragraphs from Cheung's article on 1 Pet. 3:15:
Delete//...The standard charter for Christian apologetics is fraudulent, based on a distortion of Scripture. Naturally, the product is defective. Teachers of apologetics have been such bumbling idiots that they have created a burden that everyone else must carry. For example, I have had unbelievers attempt to use 1 Peter 3:15 to force me to engage with them, and to do it on their terms and at their convenience. This text does not allow them to make this demand, but they attempt to exploit how Christians use the verse. I know the truth about this verse, so I turn it back against them to show that they are illiterate fools who are too stupid to challenge me or the Christian faith. But of course, by doing so I have also exposed practically all other Christians as incompetent. This is not my fault. Blame the teachers of apologetics and the biblical scholars.
A Christian should be ready to answer someone like a government agent about his faith when he is interrogated, but Scripture does not mean that any ordinary citizen has the right to compel a Christian to answer for his faith on the non-Christian’s terms and the non-Christian’s schedule, and to do it all with “gentleness and respect.” When sinners try to manipulate me with this verse, I have them exactly where I want them. I seize them by their throats and crush them, and they are destroyed. But they are merely using the Christian interpretation of the verse.
This distortion on 1 Peter 3:15 is not trivial, but very destructive for apologetics. It offers ammunition to non-Christians to manipulate believers, to twist their arms to do something that the Bible never commanded, and to do it with a creepy effeminate style that the Bible also never commanded. Christian apologists have been the greatest enemies of Christian apologetics. Our understanding of 1 Peter 3:15 is obvious and straightforward, and undeniable. Why haven’t we seen other people teach this? The truth is that the teachers of apologetics are not very good at apologetics, and those who correct biblical distortions themselves commit biblical distortions. They do this because they have not sanctified Jesus as Lord in their hearts, and for all the apologetics they teach and perform, they are only pursuing their own agenda and tradition. // END QUOTE
I have agreements and disagreements with Cheung's theology and approach. I've enumerated them HERE.
part one
ReplyDelete[2nd timothy 2:14 is] Not about doing apologetics with non-Christians.
-------- First, So under your own logic, you think Paul is condemning at least the constant word-wrangling that Christians engage in absent the presence of unbelievers. So if you don't condemn most Christian scholarship of the last 2000 years, you necessarily disagree with Paul, and insist that word-wrangling within the church can often be useful and can build up the hearers. But Paul neither expresses nor implies any exceptions to his desparaging comment about word-wrangling being useless and ruining the hearers. Youi don't have a choice, I am reasonable as an unbeliever to avoid any Christian scholarship that has one Christian wrangling words with another Christian. If Paul thinks spiritually alive people can be ruined by word-wrangling, he most assuredly think spiritual dead people can only derive something worse from word-wrangling.
Second, you have mischaracterized Jesus' comment about casting pearls before swine. He didn't attach any qualifications to it. Once you identify them as swine, you have no more choice, you are NOT to cast your pearls before swine. And yet it was years ago, when you first found out I claim atheism and then started strangling bible inerrancy, that you concluded I was swine. What will you do now? Moot Jesus' prohibition by pretending that Christains can never be sure whether their interlocuter is true "swine"? LOL How could you have thought me any better than "swine" starting years ago? Yet you continue to plod on and on as if you think the bible explicitly tells you to ceaselessly engage people who have borne abundant fruit that they are haters of god.
Third, Titus 3:9-11 explicitly tells you to avoid anybody who causes divisions, that prohibition is not qualified in a way that would authorize your interactions with me, and nothing in the context restricts this to just "Christians" who cause divisions. Unbelievers are often eqwually as capable of causing church divisions as Christians are. And yet you disobey that verse because you constantly engage me, a person you obviously view as either divisive or attempting to be divisive. Paul is even more explicit (and again without qualification) in Romans 16:17, which people are explicitly identified in v. 18 as NOT slaves of Jesus. Is this the part where you suddenly discover that unbelievers ARE slaves of Jesus...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?
"Which includes not quarreling about insignificant issues"
------No, 2nd Timothy 2:14 contains nothing in the context indicating the prohibited word-wrangling was a type that involved "insignificant issues", while the context does indeed indicate the prohibited wrangling was a wrangling about important doctrine (2 Tim. 2:11-13)
"It's not tell us that we should expect non-Christians to behave like Christians."
-----------That's a useless observation since I never expressed or implied the verse was telling you to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians. The point of my argument is that an unbeliever could be reasonable, if they chose, to avoid interacting with you about biblical bullshit because the bible makes it clear that BOTH of us are sinning just as soon as the inevitable word-wrangling starts. All the other bible verses requiring apologetics efforts to be made, can be obeyed in ways that do not involve word-wrangling.
"At the same time, Jesus said not to "...give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you" [Matt. 7:6] There comes a point where in apologetical/evangelistic encounters when non-Christians start proving themselves dogs/pigs."
-------You must have drawn that conclusion about me years ago when I started raking you over the coals over inerrancy and other biblical bullshit. Yet you ignore that I fit any possible biblical definition of swine, and continue interacting with me.
part two
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of these quotes:
"If you argue with a dog or a pig five hours every day, even if you are always right, it does not mean that you are spiritual or intelligent. In the end, you are just as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel. Thus Jesus said, do not throw your pearls down before swine, because they will not appreciate your insights and good intentions, but they will turn to attack you instead. If it is unwise to invest too much time in these people, it is just as unwise to settle into a defensive position, because when there is nothing to discourage their attacks, and when they are not forced to put their own eternal welfare on the line, they will continue to derive a sense of excitement and
accomplishment from the interaction."- Vincent Cheung, in "Hero" p. 70 [2022 edition]
------------Then you obviously disagree with Cheung, since you've identified me as "swine" years ago, yet you've kept up ceaselessly wrangling words with me. Your brother Cheung thus views you as equally "...as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel..." Nice going.
//All you have to do is tell the heretic or unbeliever what a biblical word means.//
I've indulged you this far because I pity your lost state.
---------Neither Matthew 7:6 nor 2nd Timothy 2:14, nor any other verse, expresses or implies that "pity their lost state" creates any exceptions to those apparently absolute prohibitions.
"But I don't have infinite time or patience."
-----And you refute that with your clear inability to successfully resist your patented need to answer a single item with 6,000 difference referneces...as if somebody dropped you on your head too many times when you were a kid, and now you seriously think quantity can often be a good substitute for quality.
"Also, because I don't "have" to do anything you're claiming, it was sufficient for me to have given you a link to other commentaries"
------It's when you do more than give links to other commentaries, that you disobey Matthew 7:6. Those commentaries are pearls, and you continuously view me as "swine" within the meaning of that verse.
//Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias.//
That's ludicrous.
-------No, you quoted Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 55, Joel 2:12 and Ps. 145 in the effort to pretend that because these verses demand "reasoning", surely 2nd Timothy 2:14 cannot be forbidding you from "reasoning" with unbelievers.
//I reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so I just laugh when you pretend that I must engage the "whole counsel of god" merely to know what a single verse meant.//
"There are free online commentaries and lexicons online."
--------You are still casting your pearls before swine.
part three
ReplyDeleteI don't "have" to do any of that. You assume I have to convince you before you're bound by the testimony of Scripture.
--------No, I'm only showing that my rejection of the gospel and refusal to engage apologists, if that's what I choose to avoid, is reasonable. Jesus never said jack shit about any New Testament or about 27 extra books being added to the Hebrew canon, yet you foolishly act as if the divine inspiration of the book of Romans is patently obvious. Your need to engage in dogmatic confirmation bias does not logically double as a way to get "truth". The Arminians are equally as confident in the blasphemous nature of Calvinism, as you are confident that libertarian freewill make a man into his own idol. Let's just say your blindly confident assertions about seriously contestable biblical issues doesn't have any effect on me, even if hearing yourself talk all big and bad makes you feel god is using you in a special way that only the members of your particular cult can "see".
I'm a Calvinist who believes in the self-attesting & self-authenticating nature of Scripture. As you read it you become more culpable irrespective of whether I make a good argument or not.
----------Then you are on the level of the atheist fool who thinks the book of nature is self-attesting, and karma is gonna get worse and worse for you the more and more you suppress the truth in the name of Jesus.
"The verse teaches us to state the reason for our hope in Jesus, not to state the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus."
------And yet "stating the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus" is precisely what Calvinists and other Christians always do.
"It does not say that our answer must prove the truth of the Christian faith to the other person’s satisfaction."
-----The book of nature doesn't say I must prove the truth of atheism to you either. Did you suddenly discover your logic is laughably one-sided? Aint it funny that the kind of philsophical short-cuts nobody is allowed to make when arguing on the merits, must always be allowed to presuppositionalists?
"The verse itself does not require one to develop an entire system of apologetics."
-------Nothing in the bible requires that, which is why I condemn the vast majority of apologetics and apologists as Phariseeical and Pharisees, who in the last 2000 years have made Christianity more complex than anything JEsus ever expressed or implied he ever anticipated it would become.
In hijacking this verse to exclusively endorse intricate systems of apologetics, Christian teachers have undermined legitimate and much more common reasons for faith.
------If spiritually alive people can so unjustly hijack a bible verse, you are STUPID to expect god to do anything better with a spiritually dead unbeliever, even if god renders him spiritually alive.
I replied to you in a new blogpost Here:
DeleteContinuing A Conversation with Atheist "barry"
I'll be polishing the blogpost for the next few hours. Looking for typos and enhancing it a bit more here and there.
Delete