Monday, July 31, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Community leaders should stop out-of-control growth - By Steve Kirchhoff
Found here. My comments in bold.
Steve Kirchoff teaches writing at MSU, he is an author, and he was mayor of Bozeman for a couple of years. As such, one would expect a certain level of competency and considered thought process in matters that are part of his expertise, like writing and government.
Or maybe not...
----------------------
The following resolution is offered to Gallatin County leaders for their consideration. Bozeman and Gallatin County’s out-of-control growth rate can only be managed by a unified effort from all leaders, elected and un-elected. (Here we have his premises, that the growth rate is out of control, and that this can only be solved by, well, everyone. In unity, or something.
Mr. Kirchoff makes no effort to establish the veracity of these premises. Indeed, it's fairly easy to demonstrate their falseness. First, "out-of-control," which suggests that there is nothing at all in operation that guides, restricts, or dictates growth. This of course is not even close to the truth. We remind Mr. Kirchoff that there are building codes, zoning, affordable housing guidelines, density requirements, open space requirements, infrastructure requirements, impact fees, and subdivision approval processes. This in no way can be regarded as "out-of-control."
His second premise follows from the first. And since the first is false, the second necessarily is imperiled. But assuming for a moment that it is the truth that growth is out-of-control, then we would do well to ask, does it follow that it "...only be managed by a unified effort from all leaders, elected and un-elected."?
There's a lot of mumble-speak in this short phrase. We don't know what "managed" is, especially since government is already deeply inserted into managing growth. We don't know what "unified" means, or why that's important. We can only speculate why Mr. Kirchoff expects the unified [which interpreted means "agree with government"] co-operation of non-elected leaders [i.e., crony capitalism.]
So upon this shaky platform he builds his series of "whereas" statements.)
Steve Kirchoff teaches writing at MSU, he is an author, and he was mayor of Bozeman for a couple of years. As such, one would expect a certain level of competency and considered thought process in matters that are part of his expertise, like writing and government.
Or maybe not...
----------------------
The following resolution is offered to Gallatin County leaders for their consideration. Bozeman and Gallatin County’s out-of-control growth rate can only be managed by a unified effort from all leaders, elected and un-elected. (Here we have his premises, that the growth rate is out of control, and that this can only be solved by, well, everyone. In unity, or something.
Mr. Kirchoff makes no effort to establish the veracity of these premises. Indeed, it's fairly easy to demonstrate their falseness. First, "out-of-control," which suggests that there is nothing at all in operation that guides, restricts, or dictates growth. This of course is not even close to the truth. We remind Mr. Kirchoff that there are building codes, zoning, affordable housing guidelines, density requirements, open space requirements, infrastructure requirements, impact fees, and subdivision approval processes. This in no way can be regarded as "out-of-control."
His second premise follows from the first. And since the first is false, the second necessarily is imperiled. But assuming for a moment that it is the truth that growth is out-of-control, then we would do well to ask, does it follow that it "...only be managed by a unified effort from all leaders, elected and un-elected."?
There's a lot of mumble-speak in this short phrase. We don't know what "managed" is, especially since government is already deeply inserted into managing growth. We don't know what "unified" means, or why that's important. We can only speculate why Mr. Kirchoff expects the unified [which interpreted means "agree with government"] co-operation of non-elected leaders [i.e., crony capitalism.]
So upon this shaky platform he builds his series of "whereas" statements.)
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
How Did We Become A Billionaires’ Republic? BY JEDEDIAH PURDY
Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------
We thought at first this article would be a succinct, coherent explanation for the provocative title. We were wrong. More than 3000 words of half formed assertions, undocumented claims, and history remembered through the lens of leftist thought.
It was a time waster.
------------------
This post first appeared at The Nation.
A new book argues that the Constitution’s framers believed that vast concentrations of wealth were the enemy of democracy — so what happened? (The author never establishes that the framers believed this.)
A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1905. (Hmm. Granting for a moment that this is true, then the whole reason for Mr. Purdy's article vanishes. "A billionaire's republic" is simply another economic theory.
Holmes, though he was a justice, is no dispassionate source. He also famously said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," which of course is a nonsense statement. But more to the point, the US Constitution creates, defines, and limits government.)
Holmes was dissenting from the Court’s majority opinion in Lochner v. New York, which held that the New York State Legislature had violated the right to freedom of contract when it passed a law setting a maximum workweek of 60 hours for bakery employees. In his dissent, Holmes insisted that there had been no violation: Because the Constitution was indifferent to economic matters, New York’s legislature was free to regulate the state’s economy as it thought best, and it was not the court’s job to second-guess it. (Assuming this is an adequate representation of the case, Holmes is incorrect. "Freedom of contract" has nothing to do with the Constitution. Contracts are agreements established and governed by law, and have been for centuries.
Does a person have a right to enter into an employment contract that exceeds 60 hours? Yes, of course. A contract only needs a legal purpose and mutual agreement.)
------------------
We thought at first this article would be a succinct, coherent explanation for the provocative title. We were wrong. More than 3000 words of half formed assertions, undocumented claims, and history remembered through the lens of leftist thought.
It was a time waster.
------------------
This post first appeared at The Nation.
A new book argues that the Constitution’s framers believed that vast concentrations of wealth were the enemy of democracy — so what happened? (The author never establishes that the framers believed this.)
A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1905. (Hmm. Granting for a moment that this is true, then the whole reason for Mr. Purdy's article vanishes. "A billionaire's republic" is simply another economic theory.
Holmes, though he was a justice, is no dispassionate source. He also famously said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," which of course is a nonsense statement. But more to the point, the US Constitution creates, defines, and limits government.)
Holmes was dissenting from the Court’s majority opinion in Lochner v. New York, which held that the New York State Legislature had violated the right to freedom of contract when it passed a law setting a maximum workweek of 60 hours for bakery employees. In his dissent, Holmes insisted that there had been no violation: Because the Constitution was indifferent to economic matters, New York’s legislature was free to regulate the state’s economy as it thought best, and it was not the court’s job to second-guess it. (Assuming this is an adequate representation of the case, Holmes is incorrect. "Freedom of contract" has nothing to do with the Constitution. Contracts are agreements established and governed by law, and have been for centuries.
Does a person have a right to enter into an employment contract that exceeds 60 hours? Yes, of course. A contract only needs a legal purpose and mutual agreement.)
Monday, July 24, 2017
Last Crusade: Thought is Thought Crime - by John. C. Wright
Found here. An insightful article.
-------------------
In a previous column (here) we discussed how, if one were the Devil’s Advocate, one would dress up the Devil’s case to have the best chance of fooling the gullible. The first deception advancing the Devil’s cause is to say the Devil does not exist because no spiritual truth exists.
The second (here) follows from the first. If no spiritual truth exists, then only secular truth is true, and only science can settle it. Unfortunately, real science by definition is neutral and silent on social and philosophical issues, so the Devil’s Advocate can only advocate Junk Science, which is deadly.
The third (here) is that science has settled all issues, and no more debate is allowed, no curiosity, no thought.
A final deception follows from the first three:
For the Left, all thought is thought-crime. Thought must be abolished.
-------------------
In a previous column (here) we discussed how, if one were the Devil’s Advocate, one would dress up the Devil’s case to have the best chance of fooling the gullible. The first deception advancing the Devil’s cause is to say the Devil does not exist because no spiritual truth exists.
The second (here) follows from the first. If no spiritual truth exists, then only secular truth is true, and only science can settle it. Unfortunately, real science by definition is neutral and silent on social and philosophical issues, so the Devil’s Advocate can only advocate Junk Science, which is deadly.
The third (here) is that science has settled all issues, and no more debate is allowed, no curiosity, no thought.
A final deception follows from the first three:
For the Left, all thought is thought-crime. Thought must be abolished.
Friday, July 21, 2017
“Modest is Hottest” is not in the Bible - by Joel Michael Herbert
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
Here is a glaring example of a lack of critical thinking skills. In addition, this article drips with pop culture superficiality and feminist ideology.
------------------------
(...)
One of the chief commonalities was this theme of modesty. Side note: in case it’s not already obvious — it really only ever applied to females. So… really, female “modesty.” Or, in other words, cover up your sexy parts, ladies, (The author implies that there is a double standard about this, which of course it a feminist argument. Feminists don't like people telling them what to do. That's one reason why there is a push for women to be able to go topless.
So we might ask the author why it's wrong for the church to ask for women to be modest, but it's okay to force a woman wear a top.)
---------------------
Here is a glaring example of a lack of critical thinking skills. In addition, this article drips with pop culture superficiality and feminist ideology.
------------------------
(...)
One of the chief commonalities was this theme of modesty. Side note: in case it’s not already obvious — it really only ever applied to females. So… really, female “modesty.” Or, in other words, cover up your sexy parts, ladies, (The author implies that there is a double standard about this, which of course it a feminist argument. Feminists don't like people telling them what to do. That's one reason why there is a push for women to be able to go topless.
So we might ask the author why it's wrong for the church to ask for women to be modest, but it's okay to force a woman wear a top.)
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Please, senator, save the ACA for those who need it - By Aaron Schuerr
Found here. My comments in bold.
-------------------------
Dear Sen. Daines,
We first met roughly a decade ago when you were the teaching leader for Bible study fellowship, before you launched your political career. In that role you were articulate, dynamic and thoughtful.
During that time, I was the youth group leader at our church and had guest-preached the Sunday sermon. Afterwards you were warm and encouraging, not in an offhanded, “good job” sort of way, but with genuine interest and insight. (Seems like the writer is buttering up Senator Daines so as to deliver a coup de grace.)
-------------------------
Dear Sen. Daines,
We first met roughly a decade ago when you were the teaching leader for Bible study fellowship, before you launched your political career. In that role you were articulate, dynamic and thoughtful.
During that time, I was the youth group leader at our church and had guest-preached the Sunday sermon. Afterwards you were warm and encouraging, not in an offhanded, “good job” sort of way, but with genuine interest and insight. (Seems like the writer is buttering up Senator Daines so as to deliver a coup de grace.)
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Denying Scripture is a pure sign that you are NOT saved. Plain and simple.
Found this on FB.
What does it mean to "deny Scripture?" Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I got to thinking about this, and I decided that it's false. So why would it be false to claim that denying Scripture means you're not saved?
First, we are saved by the mercy of God via the blood of Jesus as the Holy Spirit kindles His life in us.
What does it mean to "deny Scripture?" Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I got to thinking about this, and I decided that it's false. So why would it be false to claim that denying Scripture means you're not saved?
First, we are saved by the mercy of God via the blood of Jesus as the Holy Spirit kindles His life in us.
Ro. 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Church Values Flow Chart
Mt. 22:36-39 -
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied:
“`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the
second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Love God - Both personally and corporately
In holy worship – Bowing down
before the awesome splendor of the Most High God
In excellent praise – The
enthusiastic and fitting declarations of His goodness, mercy, power, and mighty
deeds
In genuine thanksgiving – The
circumspect gratitude for what He has done and who He is
In attentive obedience –
Listening, agreeing, and then doing what He commands
In our families
In our church
In the greater community of believers
In our areas of influence outside the church
Friday, July 14, 2017
Regulating Special Revelation - by John MacArthur
Found here. This is a continuation of another post which we covered here.
-------------------------------
Dr. MacArthur continues his use of pejorative language, and restates his faulty premise.
Dr. MacArthur continues his use of pejorative language, and restates his faulty premise.
----------------------------
If God is still speaking to His people today—particularly through mental impressions and premonitions—how can believers exercise discernment when it comes to interpreting and applying these divine messages? Put simply, how is following the private, subjective “leading” of the Lord any more reliable than gazing into a crystal ball? (We answered this question previously. Dr. MacArthur's characterization is faulty. We have more than the two choices he offers. Scripture is clear that the prophetic is not subjective. We have the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and the ministry of the brethren.)
As we saw last time, biblical discernment runs contrary to the kind of subjective mysticism many promote in the church today. Without any objective criteria, there is no means for determining truth from error. Such blithe subjectivity leaves people at the mercy of whatever mystical “voice” they’re listening to. (Which of course is not true. No one is "at the mercy" of anyone, unless of course Dr. MacArthur believes that the pastor sits at the top of the pyramid and everyone is supposed to follow him. If that is true, then Dr. MacArthur's problem is not prophecy, it is his unbiblical leadership model.)
If God is still speaking to His people today—particularly through mental impressions and premonitions—how can believers exercise discernment when it comes to interpreting and applying these divine messages? Put simply, how is following the private, subjective “leading” of the Lord any more reliable than gazing into a crystal ball? (We answered this question previously. Dr. MacArthur's characterization is faulty. We have more than the two choices he offers. Scripture is clear that the prophetic is not subjective. We have the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and the ministry of the brethren.)
As we saw last time, biblical discernment runs contrary to the kind of subjective mysticism many promote in the church today. Without any objective criteria, there is no means for determining truth from error. Such blithe subjectivity leaves people at the mercy of whatever mystical “voice” they’re listening to. (Which of course is not true. No one is "at the mercy" of anyone, unless of course Dr. MacArthur believes that the pastor sits at the top of the pyramid and everyone is supposed to follow him. If that is true, then Dr. MacArthur's problem is not prophecy, it is his unbiblical leadership model.)
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Summer Reading For Your Woke Kid - by KAYLA LATTIMORE
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
There's something really creepy about this. Here we have a SJW (social justice warrior) who is so wrapped up in his leftist ideology and world view that he wants to indoctrinate his 2 (!) year old son with books containing "unique narratives."
These people claim they're for freedom of thought, diversity, and tolerance. Yet they are deadly afraid that their 2 year old children will be exposed to the wrong ideas.
And we note that teaching your child your religion is tantamount to child abuse.
----------------------
---------------------
There's something really creepy about this. Here we have a SJW (social justice warrior) who is so wrapped up in his leftist ideology and world view that he wants to indoctrinate his 2 (!) year old son with books containing "unique narratives."
These people claim they're for freedom of thought, diversity, and tolerance. Yet they are deadly afraid that their 2 year old children will be exposed to the wrong ideas.
And we note that teaching your child your religion is tantamount to child abuse.
----------------------
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
4 Slurs Democrats Need To Stop Using As Political Weapons - by Henry Scanlon
Found here. I happen to think there are more than four slurs regularly used by the Left against anyone unfortunate enough to disagree with them.
---------------------
---------------------
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
"The Spirit speaks only in and through the inspired word." - Ferocious Truth. *updated*
Found here.
------------------
Our latest installment from the self-appointed Doctrinal Police.
Before we proceed, we should note that the reason we have a problem with folks like these isn't their commitment to their doctrine, it's their scorched-earth approach. As you read through their various posts, you find precious little in the way of edification or encouragement. If someone was interested in walking out faith in way more pleasing to God, that person would have to look elsewhere. If someone wanted a model of how brothers and sisters in the faith should interact, it would not be found at Ferocious Truth. If someone was hurting, doubting, or confused, there is nothing for that person here.
And, if someone who leaned charismatic wanted to find out why people are cessationists, that person would not find a measured, sympathetic voice among the Doctrinal Police. Why? Because they're out to destroy. They mock, belittle, impugn, and attempt to devastate their doctrinal adversaries.
*update* This was posted just now:
------------------
Our latest installment from the self-appointed Doctrinal Police.
Before we proceed, we should note that the reason we have a problem with folks like these isn't their commitment to their doctrine, it's their scorched-earth approach. As you read through their various posts, you find precious little in the way of edification or encouragement. If someone was interested in walking out faith in way more pleasing to God, that person would have to look elsewhere. If someone wanted a model of how brothers and sisters in the faith should interact, it would not be found at Ferocious Truth. If someone was hurting, doubting, or confused, there is nothing for that person here.
And, if someone who leaned charismatic wanted to find out why people are cessationists, that person would not find a measured, sympathetic voice among the Doctrinal Police. Why? Because they're out to destroy. They mock, belittle, impugn, and attempt to devastate their doctrinal adversaries.
*update* This was posted just now:
Monday, July 10, 2017
Unanswered Inequality Challenge (An explanation of equality) - John C. Wright
Found here. This is a tour de force exploration of the nature of equality.
----------------------------
(...)
Whenever the idea of equality comes up, as it has done frequently here of late, none of the opponents to equality use the word correctly, and none of them are able to distinguish inequality from those daily differences between man and man which have no legal effect.
It is difficult to argue a proposition that has been part of Western History for as long as there has been a West. The Greek word for the concept was isonomia, literally equal-law. It is found in the Bible, which alone among all surviving law codes from the Bronze Age does not list separate laws and penalties for highborn and lowborn. God is no respecter of persons.
In Europe, when Saint Patrick overthrew the Druids, he was forced to write a law code for that barbaric people. What he wrote was based directly on the Bible, including the Biblical principle that all men are created in God’s image, hence equal. When the Archiboship of Cantebury (at that time, a Catholic) drafted the Magna Carta, when the barons at Runnymede forced King John to agree to limits on his government, the inspiration of the Irish law was present.
Certain of the provisions of this law remain in effect to this day. Allow me to quote two of them:
We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers.
(...)
Whenever the idea of equality comes up, as it has done frequently here of late, none of the opponents to equality use the word correctly, and none of them are able to distinguish inequality from those daily differences between man and man which have no legal effect.
It is difficult to argue a proposition that has been part of Western History for as long as there has been a West. The Greek word for the concept was isonomia, literally equal-law. It is found in the Bible, which alone among all surviving law codes from the Bronze Age does not list separate laws and penalties for highborn and lowborn. God is no respecter of persons.
In Europe, when Saint Patrick overthrew the Druids, he was forced to write a law code for that barbaric people. What he wrote was based directly on the Bible, including the Biblical principle that all men are created in God’s image, hence equal. When the Archiboship of Cantebury (at that time, a Catholic) drafted the Magna Carta, when the barons at Runnymede forced King John to agree to limits on his government, the inspiration of the Irish law was present.
Certain of the provisions of this law remain in effect to this day. Allow me to quote two of them:
We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Difficult Bible Passages: 1 Corinthians 13:10 - by Bill Muehlenberg
Found here. A very helpful article.
-------------------
This is a passage which is problematic because of various strong views associated with it. So it might be better referred to as a contentious passage. It says this: “but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” What disappears? And what is this completeness?
Well the context is clear as to the first question. The larger context is 1 Cor. 12-14 which is all about the spiritual gifts. Snuggled in the middle of this is of course chapter 13 – the love chapter. And in 1 Cor. 13:8-13 Paul speaks of the importance of love in relation to the gifts.
Paul says tongues and prophecies and knowledge will eventually cease or disappear. But a key hermeneutical question is how we understand ‘completeness,’ or ‘the complete’ (ISV), or ‘the perfect’ (as most other translations put it). And this is part of a bigger discussion.
Where one stands on the broader issue of whether the miraculous gifts are still for today will largely determine how you understand this passage. Some argue that these gifts ended with the early church and are no longer available today (cessationists). Others argue that they still continue.
Cessationists maintain that ‘the perfect’ can refer to several options: the completion of the canon, or the maturing of the church. When the New Testament is finished and Scripture is complete, or when the church matures (which is associated with the end of the apostolic era), then there is no more need for these sign gifts (or miraculous gifts, or revelatory gifts).
But most scholars when dealing with the text as it is, without seeking to impose upon it a predetermined viewpoint on the gifts, argue that ‘the perfect’ refers to eschatological reality, having to do with when Christ returns and the end of the age takes place. When he comes again these sign gifts will no longer be needed.
But until he does return, these gifts can help the church to fulfil its mission. Or so many would argue, except the cessationists. As I say, there is a much bigger discussion to be had to help settle our answer to the question of the gifts and if they continue.
That discussion I will have to save for another time. All I want to do here is try to get a handle on what Paul is trying to say in verse 10. That is, what does he mean by ‘the perfect’? Are the cessationists right in their take on this? To try to answer this, I have pulled down a whole shelf full of commentaries on 1 Corinthians.
Of course there would be other ways to deal with verse ten, but listening to New Testament exegetes and experts on the matter is one of them. Of interest, every single one of the commentaries I looked at rejected the two minority view options of a completed canon or a mature church (or individual).
All of them agreed that the parousia, or aspects of it, is clearly what Paul has in view here. It is the end of the age and the return of the Lord that is the perfect, bringing to an end the incomplete or the imperfect. And it should be noted that many of these commentators may well be cessationists themselves, but they realise that their case cannot be made from this passage.
Let me begin with New Testament scholar Gordon Fee. He says this about the term:
Craig Blomberg says this: “Although later interpreters have at times felt otherwise, nothing in Paul supports any consciousness of his writing near the end of an apostolic age or the close of a biblical canon. And the metaphors in verse 12 fit poorly with such interpretations. . . . There can be only one possible interpretation of ‘perfection’—it is the life in the world to come after Jesus reappears on earth.”
David Garland comments:
In his very helpful brief volume, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, D. A. Carson spends a number of pages on the perfect. He dismisses the two minority views as unpersuasive, and argues for the majority view, that the parousia is in view, arguing that it “has powerful evidence in its defence.”
He then offers seven lengthy factors why this is the case, and concludes with these words: “In these verses Paul establishes the end of the age as the time when these gifts must finally be abolished.” Let me now look at some briefer remarks.
Leon Morris says the perfect “points to God’s plan. When the consummation is reached, all that is partial will be done away.” Marion Soards says this refers to “the eschatological end of imperfection” and, tying in with 1 Cor. 3:10-15, is about the sorts of things that “will survive God’s scrutiny on the Day of final judgment.”
N. T. Wright says the perfect has to do with “the age to come” and with “God’s new world.” David Prior says that these gifts “will either become irrelevant or else be swallowed up in the perfection of eternity.” Ben Witherington says this: “Tongues will cease when the Lord returns and completes his plans for Christians.”
Mark Taylor comments, “The coming of ‘perfection,’ literally, ‘the perfect thing,’ undoubtedly refers to the consummation of all things.” And Anthony Thiselton says this refers to “the eschatological act of definitive divine judgment which evaluates everything” and it amounts to “a new creation. . . . Paul is speaking of the eschatological consummation when the gifts will no longer be needed.”
In sum, you may well argue that there are biblical and theological reasons for adhering to cessationism. That case – and the case against it – can be argued in its own right. But appealing to 1 Cor. 13:10 is not a very helpful passage to run with if you are a cessationist. That is the sole point I have sought to make here.
Sure, biblical truth is not determined solely by majority vote. But on an issue like this when we have so many top notch evangelical and conservative scholars in agreement with how to render a term – even if some may not be believers in the continuation of the gifts – then we can be fairly confident that we are on the right path.
Afterword
If past experience is anything to go on, most folks will not read this, and if they do, they will ignore my wishes completely! But let me say what needs to be said nonetheless. I have said before that I tend to avoid certain theological battles because people can get so impassioned and upset about things if people dare to take a differing view.
Far too often in these sorts of debates heat rather than light is generated. Some people just insist on arguing their pet views, and will hurl anathemas at anyone who disagrees. And they will want to “educate” me as well. But let me point out that when I was an early Christian I was a gung-ho cessationist, and knew all the arguments and texts to be used.
Over the years I have modified my position somewhat, and cannot now be described as a cessationist. Yes there is plenty of Pentecostal and/or charismatic excess that one must avoid, but I have discussed these matters elsewhere. See here on this: billmuehlenberg.com/2013/10/18/on-strange-fire-part-one/
And here: billmuehlenberg.com/2013/10/18/on-strange-fire-part-two/
So there is no real need for folks to come to this site and try to “correct” me on these matters thanks. I really am quite aware of both sides of the debate. So please, do not post comments here hoping to start WWIII on this. Until I do much more introductory work on this issue, and the broader questions involved, I am not interested in having another punch-up about this.
My purpose has been quite narrow here and quite specific: to try to best understand what Paul is saying in this text. The bigger debate over whether or not these gifts are still for today needs much more discussion on my part before a proper debate can ensue. So if you are chomping at the bits to push your fav viewpoint here, perhaps wait until I pen these other pieces thanks.
Lastly, although I should save this for my bigger picture pieces on the broader debate, there is a huge amount of literature one can submerse oneself in. Let me mention just one helpful volume edited by Wayne Grudem called Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (IVP, 1996).
-------------------
This is a passage which is problematic because of various strong views associated with it. So it might be better referred to as a contentious passage. It says this: “but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” What disappears? And what is this completeness?
Well the context is clear as to the first question. The larger context is 1 Cor. 12-14 which is all about the spiritual gifts. Snuggled in the middle of this is of course chapter 13 – the love chapter. And in 1 Cor. 13:8-13 Paul speaks of the importance of love in relation to the gifts.
Paul says tongues and prophecies and knowledge will eventually cease or disappear. But a key hermeneutical question is how we understand ‘completeness,’ or ‘the complete’ (ISV), or ‘the perfect’ (as most other translations put it). And this is part of a bigger discussion.
Where one stands on the broader issue of whether the miraculous gifts are still for today will largely determine how you understand this passage. Some argue that these gifts ended with the early church and are no longer available today (cessationists). Others argue that they still continue.
Cessationists maintain that ‘the perfect’ can refer to several options: the completion of the canon, or the maturing of the church. When the New Testament is finished and Scripture is complete, or when the church matures (which is associated with the end of the apostolic era), then there is no more need for these sign gifts (or miraculous gifts, or revelatory gifts).
But most scholars when dealing with the text as it is, without seeking to impose upon it a predetermined viewpoint on the gifts, argue that ‘the perfect’ refers to eschatological reality, having to do with when Christ returns and the end of the age takes place. When he comes again these sign gifts will no longer be needed.
But until he does return, these gifts can help the church to fulfil its mission. Or so many would argue, except the cessationists. As I say, there is a much bigger discussion to be had to help settle our answer to the question of the gifts and if they continue.
That discussion I will have to save for another time. All I want to do here is try to get a handle on what Paul is trying to say in verse 10. That is, what does he mean by ‘the perfect’? Are the cessationists right in their take on this? To try to answer this, I have pulled down a whole shelf full of commentaries on 1 Corinthians.
Of course there would be other ways to deal with verse ten, but listening to New Testament exegetes and experts on the matter is one of them. Of interest, every single one of the commentaries I looked at rejected the two minority view options of a completed canon or a mature church (or individual).
All of them agreed that the parousia, or aspects of it, is clearly what Paul has in view here. It is the end of the age and the return of the Lord that is the perfect, bringing to an end the incomplete or the imperfect. And it should be noted that many of these commentators may well be cessationists themselves, but they realise that their case cannot be made from this passage.
Let me begin with New Testament scholar Gordon Fee. He says this about the term:
The nature of the eschatological language in v. 12 further implies that the term “the perfect” has to do with the Eschaton itself, not some form of “perfection” in the present age. It is not so much that the End itself is “the perfect,” language that does not make tolerably good sense; rather, it is what happens at the End, when the goal has been reached. At the coming of Christ the final purpose of God’s saving work in Christ will have been reached; at that point those gifts now necessary for the building up of the church in the present age will disappear, because “the complete” will have come.Of course cessationists may want to dismiss Fee’s remarks, simply because he is not a cessationist, and is in fact a Pentecostal. But plenty of other scholars share his view, and most would not be Pentecostals or charismatics. They simply think the case for cessationism is not best made from 1 Cor. 13. Perhaps elsewhere, but not from this verse.
Craig Blomberg says this: “Although later interpreters have at times felt otherwise, nothing in Paul supports any consciousness of his writing near the end of an apostolic age or the close of a biblical canon. And the metaphors in verse 12 fit poorly with such interpretations. . . . There can be only one possible interpretation of ‘perfection’—it is the life in the world to come after Jesus reappears on earth.”
David Garland comments:
“The perfect” refers to the state of affairs brought about by the Parousia. . . . Here, the battery of future tenses, the disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete, and the reference to knowing as God knows us, all point to the end time. The “perfect” is shorthand for the consummation of all things, the intended goal of creation; and its arrival will naturally displace the partial that we experience in the present age. Human gifts shine gloriously in this world but will fade to nothing in the presence of what is perfect.Or as Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner put it, “The context (esp. v. 12) makes it absolutely clear, however, that the point at which Paul expects the gifts to pass away or disappear is when we see the Lord ‘face to face’ and ‘know [him] fully, even as [we are] fully known’.”
In his very helpful brief volume, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, D. A. Carson spends a number of pages on the perfect. He dismisses the two minority views as unpersuasive, and argues for the majority view, that the parousia is in view, arguing that it “has powerful evidence in its defence.”
He then offers seven lengthy factors why this is the case, and concludes with these words: “In these verses Paul establishes the end of the age as the time when these gifts must finally be abolished.” Let me now look at some briefer remarks.
Leon Morris says the perfect “points to God’s plan. When the consummation is reached, all that is partial will be done away.” Marion Soards says this refers to “the eschatological end of imperfection” and, tying in with 1 Cor. 3:10-15, is about the sorts of things that “will survive God’s scrutiny on the Day of final judgment.”
N. T. Wright says the perfect has to do with “the age to come” and with “God’s new world.” David Prior says that these gifts “will either become irrelevant or else be swallowed up in the perfection of eternity.” Ben Witherington says this: “Tongues will cease when the Lord returns and completes his plans for Christians.”
Mark Taylor comments, “The coming of ‘perfection,’ literally, ‘the perfect thing,’ undoubtedly refers to the consummation of all things.” And Anthony Thiselton says this refers to “the eschatological act of definitive divine judgment which evaluates everything” and it amounts to “a new creation. . . . Paul is speaking of the eschatological consummation when the gifts will no longer be needed.”
In sum, you may well argue that there are biblical and theological reasons for adhering to cessationism. That case – and the case against it – can be argued in its own right. But appealing to 1 Cor. 13:10 is not a very helpful passage to run with if you are a cessationist. That is the sole point I have sought to make here.
Sure, biblical truth is not determined solely by majority vote. But on an issue like this when we have so many top notch evangelical and conservative scholars in agreement with how to render a term – even if some may not be believers in the continuation of the gifts – then we can be fairly confident that we are on the right path.
Afterword
If past experience is anything to go on, most folks will not read this, and if they do, they will ignore my wishes completely! But let me say what needs to be said nonetheless. I have said before that I tend to avoid certain theological battles because people can get so impassioned and upset about things if people dare to take a differing view.
Far too often in these sorts of debates heat rather than light is generated. Some people just insist on arguing their pet views, and will hurl anathemas at anyone who disagrees. And they will want to “educate” me as well. But let me point out that when I was an early Christian I was a gung-ho cessationist, and knew all the arguments and texts to be used.
Over the years I have modified my position somewhat, and cannot now be described as a cessationist. Yes there is plenty of Pentecostal and/or charismatic excess that one must avoid, but I have discussed these matters elsewhere. See here on this: billmuehlenberg.com/2013/10/18/on-strange-fire-part-one/
And here: billmuehlenberg.com/2013/10/18/on-strange-fire-part-two/
So there is no real need for folks to come to this site and try to “correct” me on these matters thanks. I really am quite aware of both sides of the debate. So please, do not post comments here hoping to start WWIII on this. Until I do much more introductory work on this issue, and the broader questions involved, I am not interested in having another punch-up about this.
My purpose has been quite narrow here and quite specific: to try to best understand what Paul is saying in this text. The bigger debate over whether or not these gifts are still for today needs much more discussion on my part before a proper debate can ensue. So if you are chomping at the bits to push your fav viewpoint here, perhaps wait until I pen these other pieces thanks.
Lastly, although I should save this for my bigger picture pieces on the broader debate, there is a huge amount of literature one can submerse oneself in. Let me mention just one helpful volume edited by Wayne Grudem called Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (IVP, 1996).
Friday, June 30, 2017
Bernie Sanders: Capitalist Pig - by Daniel Greenfield
Found here. A very good article.
-----------------------
When Bernie Sanders first came to Vermont, he bought a shack with a dirt floor with unemployment money. Last year, Bernie joined the company of Vermont’s 1% and bought his third home.
The money that Bernie used his way to break the $1 million mark and buy his way into the 1% came from the $27 donors he touted during his campaign. Other campaigns were funded by billionaires. But the folks paying for Bernie’s private Delta 767 with its menu of herb crusted lamb loin, chocolate ganache, fine cheeses and white wine were ordinary people who would never be allowed to fly on it.
Bernie could live large on their donations, but he couldn’t directly pocket their money. Not unless he figured out how to sell them something of his own. And that’s how Bernie joined the 1%.
Our Revolution, Bernie’s book, which was also the name of his new organization, sold for $27. According to Bernie, that was the average size of his donations. The actual number was $86, but truth and Bernie have always had only the loosest of relationships. And Bernie supporters were no longer giving $27 to subsidize a campaign, a cause, Bernie’s jet and his consultants, but his wallet and his summer home.
Bernie sold his supporters for $27 a head to a multinational corporation in exchange for $795,000. His book is named after Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization that he set up to influence elections and which can accept unlimited amounts of money from donors without disclosing them.
According to Our Revolution’s former organizing director, it was set up that way to "take big checks from billionaires."
Bernie Sanders can’t legally be involved in running his own organization. But he can cash in on a book which has the same name as that organization. The distinctions are bound to be lost on his supporters just as they didn’t understand what it meant when Bernie didn’t cap the commissions of his consultants.
When Bernie Sanders first came to Vermont, he bought a shack with a dirt floor with unemployment money. Last year, Bernie joined the company of Vermont’s 1% and bought his third home.
The money that Bernie used his way to break the $1 million mark and buy his way into the 1% came from the $27 donors he touted during his campaign. Other campaigns were funded by billionaires. But the folks paying for Bernie’s private Delta 767 with its menu of herb crusted lamb loin, chocolate ganache, fine cheeses and white wine were ordinary people who would never be allowed to fly on it.
Bernie could live large on their donations, but he couldn’t directly pocket their money. Not unless he figured out how to sell them something of his own. And that’s how Bernie joined the 1%.
Our Revolution, Bernie’s book, which was also the name of his new organization, sold for $27. According to Bernie, that was the average size of his donations. The actual number was $86, but truth and Bernie have always had only the loosest of relationships. And Bernie supporters were no longer giving $27 to subsidize a campaign, a cause, Bernie’s jet and his consultants, but his wallet and his summer home.
Bernie sold his supporters for $27 a head to a multinational corporation in exchange for $795,000. His book is named after Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization that he set up to influence elections and which can accept unlimited amounts of money from donors without disclosing them.
According to Our Revolution’s former organizing director, it was set up that way to "take big checks from billionaires."
Bernie Sanders can’t legally be involved in running his own organization. But he can cash in on a book which has the same name as that organization. The distinctions are bound to be lost on his supporters just as they didn’t understand what it meant when Bernie didn’t cap the commissions of his consultants.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
The Case for Cessationism Stands - by Tom Pennington
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Seinfeld "Sermon" Inspires Andy Stanley - NOT The Bible - by Chris Rosebrough
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
This article is a perfect example of the problem with being the doctrinal police. At some point you start picking nits in your continual quest for horrendous heresy. You start to become consumed with every statement made by alleged false teachers. It's tunnel vision, where you're unable to see anything except the perceived violators of your doctrine.
So here the author is hammering Andy Stanley, not for doctrinal error, but because he based his sermon on an idea from a T.V. show. Apparently pop culture references are now considered errant teaching.
From this we are supposed to conclude that Andy Stanley is a false teacher for doing this unbiblical thing. But is it unbiblical? Well, no. It may shock you to learn that Paul employed the very same technique:
Ac. 17:22-23, 28 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD... 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.’
This is what we mean by tunnel vision. Under the guise of defending the faith, the author neglects what the Bible record reveals to us. He cannot see anything that contravenes his preconceptions.
Now, we must mention we am not defending Andy Stanley. We've never heard him speak until we watched the video below. Our purpose is to point out that there isn't necessarily a heretic under every rock.
One last thing. The author posts a 6 minute video, and directs his readers to a link to the entire sermon, implying that it's substandard. You can bet that few of his readers will watch the entire sermon, and will make their negative judgments solely based on the limited evidence of that 6 minutes.
The sermon centers on James 1:22-25, to not just be hearers but doers of the word, and Stanely spends a good bit of time talking about the passage. Hardly "window dressing." And interestingly, he also preaches Christ crucified (26:30). We're willing to bet that the author did not listen to the whole sermon himself.
Now, we must mention we am not defending Andy Stanley. We've never heard him speak until we watched the video below. Our purpose is to point out that there isn't necessarily a heretic under every rock.
One last thing. The author posts a 6 minute video, and directs his readers to a link to the entire sermon, implying that it's substandard. You can bet that few of his readers will watch the entire sermon, and will make their negative judgments solely based on the limited evidence of that 6 minutes.
The sermon centers on James 1:22-25, to not just be hearers but doers of the word, and Stanely spends a good bit of time talking about the passage. Hardly "window dressing." And interestingly, he also preaches Christ crucified (26:30). We're willing to bet that the author did not listen to the whole sermon himself.
---------------------------
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Christians and the death penalty - FB conversation
As a Christian, I have a hard time reconciling the notion that someone who claims Christ and being pro-life can be for the death penalty.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
A Simple Explanation of Monergism - by John Hendryx / The Heresy of Monergism - By Robin Phillips
Found here. I also posted an article critical of monergism below. The contrast is interesting to me because of the binary thinking on both sides. The presumption is that it has to be one way or the other, but what if it's both? God is not a binary being, and is perfectly capable of simultaneously 100% in control of everything and the sole actor in our salvation while still allowing 100% free will.
---------------------------
Monergism simply means that it is God who gives ears to hear and eyes to see. It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency. The apostle John recorded Jesus saying to Nicodemus that we naturally love darkness, hate the light and WILL NOT come into the light (John 3:19, 20). And since our hardened resistance to God is thus seated in our affections, only God, by His grace, can lovingly change, overcome and disarm our rebellious disposition. The natural man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own since he is at enmity with God and cannot understand spiritual things. Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not enable his to see, since, as we all know, sight requires new eyes or some restoration of his visual faculty. Likewise, reading or hearing the word of God itself cannot elicit saving faith in the reader (or hearer) unless the Spirit first "germinates" the seed of the word in the heart, so to speak, which then infallibly gives rise to our faith and union with Christ. Like unto Lydia whom "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul," (Acts 16:14) He must also give all His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are to be open and thus turn (respond) to Christ in faith.
---------------------------
Monergism simply means that it is God who gives ears to hear and eyes to see. It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency. The apostle John recorded Jesus saying to Nicodemus that we naturally love darkness, hate the light and WILL NOT come into the light (John 3:19, 20). And since our hardened resistance to God is thus seated in our affections, only God, by His grace, can lovingly change, overcome and disarm our rebellious disposition. The natural man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own since he is at enmity with God and cannot understand spiritual things. Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not enable his to see, since, as we all know, sight requires new eyes or some restoration of his visual faculty. Likewise, reading or hearing the word of God itself cannot elicit saving faith in the reader (or hearer) unless the Spirit first "germinates" the seed of the word in the heart, so to speak, which then infallibly gives rise to our faith and union with Christ. Like unto Lydia whom "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul," (Acts 16:14) He must also give all His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are to be open and thus turn (respond) to Christ in faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)