In 1588 the Dominican theologians Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) and Tomas de Lemos (1555-1629) emerged as the leading opponents of middle knowledge. Báñez and Lemos advanced three major criticisms of the doctrine. [1] First, it contradicts Aquinas’s understanding of God’s general concurrence. For Aquinas, general concurrence constituted God’s sovereign generation of events by acting directly upon secondary agents (e.g., humans), moving them in advance and working through them to bring about those events.
In order to make God the author only of good events and not of bad ones, Aquinas derived a strong distinction between efficacious and inefficacious concurrence. Efficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God intends them to produce; in this case, God’s power over the agents is infallibly and irresistibly directed toward producing their intended effects. Inefficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God does not intend them to produce; in that case, God’s power over the agents is sufficient or sufficient for those agents to produce the effects God intended, but it is not infallibly or irresistibly directed toward those effects. Thus, imperfect creatures redirect God’s power toward producing sinful events, which cannot happen apart from that power. On Aquinas’s view, efficacious concurrence is intrinsically efficacious, and inefficacious concurrence is intrinsically inefficacious.
While efficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God positively volitions [2] , inefficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God does not intend to produce but merely permits. In contrast to Aquinas, Molina declared that general concurrence amounted to God’s sovereign causality of events by acting directly on those events and not on secondary agents. He therefore denied that secondary agents must be moved by God to use their causal power. Furthermore, Molina argued that intrinsically, God’s general concurrence is neither efficacious nor inefficacious. Rather, it is intrinsically neutral and is extrinsically made efficacious or inefficacious by the relevant secondary agents. [3]
Second, Báñez and Lemos argued that middle knowledge implied passivity in God, since making divine concurrence intrinsically neutral seemed to make God relate in exactly the same way to the good and evil actions of creatures. In the words of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “God would be neither the author of good nor of evil acts, at least as far as his intrinsic and free determination is concerned, because neither good nor evil acts would come from Him, at least as far as the performance of these acts is concerned.” [4] Accordingly, God’s essence as actus purus (pure act), as defined by Aquinas, is compromised if God were not to decree what free creatures would do in each set of circumstances, but instead sit back as a helpless spectator and watch what happens. [5] Third, Báñez and Lemos asserted that middle knowledge eviscerated God’s freedom, since God would know what He would freely do in any set of circumstances in which He found Himself. [6] Because they found these criticisms persuasive, the vast majority of contemporary Dominicans followed Báñez and Lemos in accusing Molina.
Regarding divine concurrence, Molina defended his position by asserting the incoherence of the Thomistic alternative held by his Dominican interlocutors for three reasons. First, the Dominicans could not explain God’s detailed knowledge of evil events. While the Dominican position had the ability to delineate God’s detailed knowledge of good events, as well as God’s general knowledge that good events would not occur in various circumstances (based on his decisions to concur inefficaciously rather than efficaciously with creatures), Molina held that the Dominican position lacked an explanation of how God knows exactly which evil events would occur. [7] Freddoso illustrates Molina’s point with the following example:
Let us take the state of affairs of Peter remaining loyal to Christ in H, where H is the situation in which Peter actually freely denies Christ. Since God’s concurrence with Peter in H is itself sufficient to produce the desired effect of Peter remaining loyal, it only follows that Peter will not remain loyal. But there are many ways in which Peter could deny Christ, a host of intentions on which he could act, different degrees of cowardice or outright malice that his act could evince, different words he could use. How can God know all the relevant details with precision, given only his prior resolution not to causally predetermine Peter’s loyalty in H? [8]
Second, Molina charged that the radical asymmetry proposed by the Dominicans between God’s causal contribution to good and evil events was nonsensical. For an evil event can differ from its benign analogue only by virtue of some historical circumstance. In this regard, Molina pointed out that the same act of sexual intercourse, with all its physical and psychological characteristics, is good if the couple is married, but bad if they are not. Imagine that the history of the couple’s relationship in both cases is exactly the same, except for the short visit to a priest where the marriage ceremony was performed. Is it not absurd, Molina asked, to suppose that God’s intrinsically efficacious concurrence is necessary in one case but not in the other? If creatures are capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is evil, why are they not equally capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is good? [9]
Third, Molina argued that on the Dominican view, God cannot truly will the virtuous events that He chooses not to predetermine through His intrinsically efficacious concurrence. For example, if God truly intends that Judas repent after betraying Jesus, and if God can effect this repentance simply through efficacious concurrence, then why does God refuse to grant such concurrence? In general, Molina held that the Dominicans made it impossible to blame creatures for their evil acts, since those acts necessarily resulted from the absence of God’s efficacious concurrence. Sins become acts of God’s omission, making God the author of sins as if they had been produced by God’s omission. Thus, Molina declared:
Again, what resentment will God have on the Day of Judgment against the wicked, since they were unable not to sin as long as God did not effectively incline and determine them to good, but rather solely by His own free will decided from eternity not to determine them to do so? Most likely, if this position is accepted, our freedom of choice is completely destroyed, God’s justice towards the wicked vanishes, and a cruelty and perversity are perceived in God. That is why I consider this position to be extremely dangerous from the point of view of faith. [10]
For these reasons, Molina concluded that if divine concurrence were intrinsically efficacious or inefficacious rather than, as he insisted, intrinsically neutral, then ostensibly free creatures would be nothing more than puppets controlled by God, who alone possesses freedom. [11]
In response to Báñez and Lemos’s second charge that middle knowledge implied divine passivity, Molina claimed that it does so only if one conceives of God in a Thomistic sense as pure act, the determining cause of all that occurs. But Molina insisted that one should abandon the doctrine of pure act as philosophically incoherent and contradictory to Scripture. For if God is pure act, then God’s attributes are not distinct from one another. But surely, for example, God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence denote two distinct properties, each of which is irreducible to the other. [12] This can be seen conceptually by observing that an entity could be all-powerful without being wholly loving, and an entity could be wholly loving without being wholly good. However, both attributes are philosophically necessary to God’s status, pro Anselm, as the greatest being conceivable, and both attributes are affirmed biblically (Genesis 17:1, 1 John 4:8). [13]
Rather than pure act, Molina believed that God must be understood as essentially infinite and tripersonal, an understanding that precluded divine passivity. God’s infinity, or the sum total of his great making properties, includes his omniscience, which in turn includes his middle knowledge. Taking advantage of this knowledge, the tripersonal God chooses, in his creative decree, all that will happen (the actual world [14] ) from all that could possibly happen given human freedom and natural indeterminism (the set of all feasible worlds [15] ). Far from sitting idly by, God is the active agent whose free decision is the indispensable factor in producing all human actions. [16] And God’s free decision produces these actions indeterministically, so that God cannot be accused as the author of sin. In fact, each of the three Trinitarian persons is grieved by sin (Gen. 6:6; Luke 19:41-44; Eph. 4:30). [17] This sorrow was so strong that it moved God to enter human history and become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, to solve the problem of sin once and for all and thus redeem all who place their faith in him (Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3-4; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14). [18]
Regarding Báñez and Lemos’ third charge that middle knowledge destroyed divine freedom, Molina emphasized that middle knowledge does not give God knowledge of what he himself would do under any set of circumstances. If God had such knowledge, Molina admitted, that would certainly destroy divine freedom. [19] Middle knowledge only gives God knowledge of what any possible creature would freely do under any conceivable circumstances. Here Molina emphasized that the way God has middle knowledge is supercomprehension, or his ability to infinitely perceive the essence or pattern of each individual or possible creature that exists solely in his imagination prior to the divine creative decree. Because these individual essences are abstract, not concrete objects, and God perfectly understands his own imagination, supercomprehension follows inevitably as a result. But it is logically impossible for God to supercomprehension himself, since God is a concrete object (even more than that, the only logically necessary concrete object), not an abstract object that exists within God’s imagination. God’s individual essence is also not an abstract object existing within God’s imagination, but is one and the same as his existence. [20] Furthermore, Molina insisted that supercomprehension can only occur when the knower infinitely transcends in fullness or totality that which is known. Since God cannot infinitely transcend his own perfection, the idea that God supercomprehended himself again proves to be self-refuting. Tying together the threads of his case, Molina asserted:
God does not know, solely by virtue of the knowledge which precedes the act of His will, what part of His own will will determine itself with respect to any object which may be created by Him, although, by virtue of that same knowledge He does know , on the hypothesis that His will were to choose to determine itself to one or another order of things and circumstances, what each created faculty of choice would volition or do in its freedom within that order. Now the reason of this is, that whereas the divine intellect and knowledge surpass in perfection by an infinite distance every created faculty of choice which they contain eminently in themselves and which for this reason they comprehend in an infinitely more eminent manner than that in which it is knowable (that is, itself [21] ), so they too do not surpass the divine will in perfection nor comprehend it in a more eminent manner than that which is knowable in itself. However, as has been said, it is this kind of understanding that is required to know about free choice, before it determines itself, which part it is going to determine itself in its freedom under any given hypothesis. [22]
Molina went on to assert that in choosing to create the present world, God freely decides what all of his future actions in that world will be. These actions are in no way determined by God’s prevolitional knowledge, but are entirely dependent on God in his freedom. Therefore, God knows everything that he will do in the world in his free knowledge, not in his middle knowledge. In other words, God has foreknowledge of his own actions in the present world, not by knowing in his middle knowledge what he would do in every conceivable circumstance, but by knowing what he has decided, in his creative decree, to do in every future circumstance, by means of his almighty power to carry out his freely chosen will. [23]
Grades
[1] Robert Joseph Matava, “Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez and the Controversy de Auxiliis,” PhD diss. (University of Saint Andrews, 2010), 1 – 24.
[2] Translator’s note. The verb here is “to will” which has no literal translation in Spanish. “To will” expresses an exercise of will or an inclination toward something, not merely “wanting something.” The confusion arises because there are two words in English that are translated into Spanish as “querer” (to want) and “to will.” The first of these is what we know as “wanting something” in the sense of having a desire and intention for it. While the second can be specified as a volition of the agent.
[3] Alfred J. Freddoso, “Introduction,” in Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 18 – 19.
[4] Réginald Gartigou Ñagrange, The One God , trans. Bede Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), 466.
[5] William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience , Studies in Intellectual History 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 270
[6] Domingo Báñez, Pedro Herrera, and Didacus Alvarez, Apologetica fratrum prædicatorum in provinciâ Hispaniæ sacræ theologiæ professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinæ nuncupati (Madrid, 1595), 3.25; Thomas of Lemos, Acta omnia et Congregatioum disputationum, quae coram SS. Clement VIII and V Panlo Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa controversy et illa magna de auxiliis divinae gratiæ (Lovain, 1702), 8.5.
[7] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordiam, continens responses ad tres objectiones et satisfactiones ad 17 animadversiones (Libson, 1589), 4 – 7.
[8] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 39.
[9] Ibid., 40; Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 4.14.13.53.2.13.
[10] Molina, Foreknwowledge , 4.14.13.50.14.
[11] The Dominicans did not feel that they were denying human libertarian freedom. In fact, they argued that creatures possessed libertarian freedom, though without using the modern phrase. But Molina found these claims philosophically incoherent and concluded that despite what they said, the Dominicans ended up with a compatibilist freedom.
[12] However, Molina also held that neither God’s omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence is separable from God’s essence. So I don’t think the evidence allows us to conclude what Molina’s position was (or even whether he had one) concerning divine simplicity. It seems to me that Molina’s doctrine is compatible with either divine simplicity (the mainstream Christian view) or divine univocity (the minority view held, for example, by Scotus), depending on whether one thinks the doctrine applies at the level of essence or at the level of attributes.
[13] Molina, Concordia , 1.14.13.19.2.10.
[14] Translator’s note. Original: “the actual world.” It does not refer to a temporal adjective, i.e., to the “contemporary world.” But to the world that God has actualized or made real . “In religious jargon, it is not unusual to refer to God as creating the world. However, in the semantics of possible worlds, this is semantically improper. Rather, God’s creative activity must be referred to as “creating the heavens and the earth,” but as actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs have no beginning, and the language of creation implies this).” The above excerpt was taken from the Scientia Media section of the article on Middle Knowledge in the Internet Philosophical Encyclopedia. Consulted on July 24, 2020 at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/ See also definitions (3) and (5) of the Royal Spanish Academy: https://dle.rae.es/?id=0d341nz (3) tr. To put into action, to carry out. (5) tr. To make abstract or virtual linguistic elements become concrete and individual. Consulted on February 15, 2019. See also: http://www.filosofia.org/enc/ros/actualiz.htm ; Consulted on July 24, 2020.
[15] Translator’s note. Original “feasible world”. In modal logic, feasible worlds are a subset of worlds within the possible worlds that, given a set of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, are within the power of God to actualize (see note 14). Others call them “metaphysically possible worlds”. See Moreland, J.P. & Lane Craig, William. “ Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview ”, 2nd Ed. Kerigma Publications, pp. 609-616, Keathley, Kenneth, “ Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach ”. Ed. B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 16-18, 38-41, 149-152, Lane Craig, William. “ The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom ” ed. Wipf and Stock Publishers, pp. 129 – 13, MacGregor, Kirk, “ Luis de Molina: Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge ”. Ed. Zondervan 2015, pp. 79 – 96. For the definition of possible worlds, see What is the logic of possible worlds about? , Jaramillo, Raúl, https://www.apologetica.com.ar/logica-mundos-posibles/ ; consulted on July 24, 2020.
[16] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordia , 26 – 27.
[17] Molina, Concordia , 5.19.6.1.26.
[18] Ibid., 3.14.13.46.18, 20.
[19] Molina, Foreknowledge , 4.14.13.52.13.
[20] Here Molina focused on a trivial Thomistic idea, since Aquinas believed that the notion of God as pure act was logically equivalent to the identity between God’s essence and his existence. Molina takes these to be two entirely different notions, interpreting pure act as the actualization of God completely determining everything that happens and the identity between essence and existence as the Anselmian claim that the idea of God in the mind, including in the mind of God, cannot exist apart from a concrete reality of God ( Appendix ad Concordiam , 13, 36, 41).
[21] This reflexive understanding of “what is knowable” is implicit in the immediate context and is in the Latin construction “quodam eminentiori modo, qua,m illud sit cognoscibile” ( Concordia , 4.14.13.52.13).
[22] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.
[23] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.
Excerpt Luis de Molina: Life and Theology , MacGregor, Kirk, Ph.D.
Translation and Annotations: Eng. Raúl Jaramillo
Does Abortion Trump Everything Else?
PodcastDoes Abortion Trump Everything Else?
Have you heard people say that you’re just a one-issue voter? You’re pro-life on abortion but you need to be pro-life until natural death. You need a more biblically balanced view and address other issues that are just as important, such as racism, poverty, and healthcare. Dr. Ron Sider, a politically liberal evangelical, makes that case in a new blog.
Frank responds that equating all those issues makes four major mistakes, including ignoring the teaching of Jesus. This is an important show as we enter the home stretch of the election season.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Don’t Lose the Person When Winning an Argument
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
1 Peter 3:15 is a classic prooftext for the defender of the faith, otherwise known as the Christian apologist. Peter writes, “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). While this verse is imperative to the modern Christian, we must also remember the next verse where Peter states, “Yet do this with gentleness and reverence, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:16). Peter emphasizes how a Christian does apologetics as much as he stresses the need for apologetics.
Many times, a person may win an argument but lose the person. When presenting a case for the faith, we should never become haughty, seeking to appear intelligent or to demonstrate our superiority. Such attempts will eventually lose the person with whom you are speaking. Rather, we should seek to build friendships and bonds with others, especially those who differ from our point of view. This coincides with Paul’s teaching to the 1 Corinthians where he says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 15:2). You can be the smartest person in the world and still remain useless to the kingdom if you don’t have a loving spirit.
In your dealings this week, ask yourself if you are engaging people with a heart of love. If not, you might better go back to the drawing board and remember that it was love that created you, love that saved you, and love that grants you eternal life. Going back to Paul, he noted that there exist three things “faith, hope, and love—but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). When engaging people in evangelism, ask yourself if your purpose is to win the person over to Christ or simply to win the argument at hand.
In my observations of online debates and forums, we as Christians have the habit of becoming nasty in our dialogues with others. Would we have come to faith if someone spoke to us the way we speak to others? Diplomacy and tact go a long way in building bridges and establishing friendships. In our conversations, it is important that we don’t lose the person in our attempts to win an argument. 1 Peter 3:16 balances 1 Peter 3:15 and is just as necessary in our approach. If we don’t have love, we don’t have anything.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for nearly 20 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/30tQyvf
Battling a Disease More Infectious & Deadly Than COVID-19
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Adam Tucker
As hundreds of thousands of people battle COVID-19 following thousands of deaths, lockdowns, and much fear, the world eagerly awaits a proven treatment plan to cure this dreaded virus. I’m sure many of you, like me, often pray for wisdom and protection for those on the frontlines battling this invisible foe. But there is another invisible enemy, one more formidable than COVID-19, that has wreaked havoc on millions of lives for centuries. This unseen tyrant takes many forms and can often be hard to detect. We are all susceptible to this disease, and without the proper precautions, anyone can fall victim. Sadly, the aftermath of this nemesis is often very visible, making it seem as though it is much more foreboding than it actually is. No, it’s not another novel virus. It is the always-lurking disease of bad ideas.
This disease’s most recent high-profile victim is Jon Steingard, lead vocalist for Hawk Nelson, the once very popular Christian rock group. Jon joins Rhett and Link (popular YouTube comedians and former Cru staffers), Marty Sampson (Hillsong worship artist), Michael Gungor (lead singer for Christian duo Gungor), and Joshua Harris (extremely popular Christian author and pastor) who have either renounced Christianity outright or expressed serious misgivings about the faith in recent years. This does not even mention the number of popular Christian leaders, authors, singers, etc. who are drifting, or have drifted, from biblical Christianity to a more liberal/progressive version of “Christianity.”
What can we do to combat this deadly contagion? The following guidelines may, or may not, be endorsed by the CDC. For the past 28 years, however, they are what Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College has trained men and women from all walks of life to do effectively.
Recognize the Symptoms
In our brief case study, we will examine Jon’s story since he is the most recent casualty, and the reasons for his “deconstruction” are similar across related cases. In fact, Jon says he shared his doubts with some of his close friends and was “shocked” to discover that his doubts were “shared by nearly every close friend [his] age” who has a similar background to his own.
Jon grew up constantly at church, surrounded by Christians. His dad is a pastor, and Jon says the church wasn’t just part of his family’s life; it was their life. He points out, “When you grow up in a community that holds a shared belief, and that shared belief is so incredibly central to everything, you simply adopt it.” It was in high school that, like many young people, Jon first began to encounter questions and doubts. He says, “I figured I was overthinking all these things. This was the beginning of my doubt, and I began to develop the reflex to simply push it down and soldier on. … I felt it must be true.”
This is symptom number one, putting feelings overthinking. So many Christians and formerly-professing-Christians experience this common symptom. Of course, it’s no wonder that this symptom is so widespread given the fact that our culture has by and large elevated man’s will over his intellect. This usually presents itself in one of two ways, or sometimes as a combination of the two. The first way is that many Christians, like Jon, simply “feel” better if they act as though Christianity is true and never seek answers to their questions or reasons for their beliefs. They ignore their doubts and simply attempt to muster up more “faith.” The second way, and perhaps more problematic, is that feelings cause others to question historic Christianity because they feel as though something like homosexual behavior, for example, must be OK. Or they feel that truly loving someone would never mean telling someone their thoughts or behaviors are wrong. Moreover, they seem certain that their feelings could never be wrong about such things. More and more people are presenting with this system, and it is something about which each practitioner should be aware of.
Like any normal human being, Jon finally began to wrestle with the difficult questions of the faith and attempt to think through things about which he was having trouble making sense. He specifically mentions the perennial problem of evil (specifically noting both natural and moral evil), the problem of a loving God sending people to hell, the “pissed off” God of the Old Testament who commands the killing of certain people, and the fact that Jesus would have to die for our sins in order for God to forgive us. Jon also shares that he wrestled with many things he considered to be contradictions in the Bible. He honestly laments, “Suffice it to say that when I began to believe that the Bible was simply a book written by people as flawed and imperfect as I am – that was when my belief in God truly began to unravel. … Once I found that I didn’t believe the Bible was the perfect Word of God – it didn’t take long to realize that I was no longer sure He was there at all.”
This is symptom number two, neglect or absence of prolegomena and natural theology. For those unaware, “prolegomena” is the study of the foundational truths that must be the case in order for Christianity to be true (ex. the nature of truth, the nature of reality, the existence of God, the nature of communication, the reliability of the Bible, etc.). “Natural theology” is the study of what can be known about the existence and nature of God apart from the Bible (i.e., using general revelation to reason from effect [creation] to cause [God]). The neglect/absence of these two areas is one of the most critical symptoms for which to monitor. It typically arises when believers, like Jon, have little or no exposure to philosophy and apologetics that provide the intellectual foundation for the truthfulness of Christianity. They typically make blind appeals to the Bible with no foundational truths upon which to build a confident trust in and proper understanding of the Word of God. Retired academic Dr. Bruce Charlton notes,
Because a solid foundation is often missing, even when believers do have some exposure to these disciplines, the “God” they are learning about is essentially the equivalent to a really big invisible Superman who’s just smarter, more powerful, and supposedly morally better than us; whose sole purpose often seems is to make our lives easy and provide us with endless warm fuzzies. This, however, is not the God of classical Christian thinking (more on this later). One should carefully note the connection between the first two symptoms. When the role of the intellect is neglected in the Christian life, it is easy for this second symptom to manifest.
Thankfully, Jon says that he is “open to the idea that God is there.” Openness is key. However, he goes on to say, “I know my parents pray that God reveals Himself to me. If He’s there, I hope He does.” He then laments the fact that he and his wife “always had this sense that [they] weren’t doing enough of the things [they] were supposed to do as Christians. … It all felt like an obligation, and [their] lack of enthusiasm about those things always made [them] feel like something was wrong with [them].” Jon admits that now they don’t think anything was wrong with them, they “simply didn’t believe” and “were too afraid to admit that to [themselves].”
Once again, Dr. Charlton observes,
This is symptom number three, wrong motives based on false expectations. The disease of bad ideas has so infected vast swathes of Christianity that far too many professing believers simply end up living out a cultural Christianity that has little basis in reality due in large part to the first two symptoms above. When this happens, symptom three typically follows. I know this from my own personal experience. Whether driven by the drive to please loved ones, cultural expectations, fear, or simply a guilty conscience, many believers go through the motions of Christianity in a legalistic fashion with no real substance to their Christian convictions. Likewise, because God is viewed as an invisible Superman, many people struggling with doubts and questions expect God to supernaturally manifest Himself to them personally in such a way that all their questions are answered. They may even wish for God to be real and desire to worship Him, but they only want to do so on their own terms rather than His. Again, a failure to have a proper natural theology of God leads to these confused motives and false expectations.
The above symptoms, among others, are good indicators that someone may be in the midst of, or in danger of beginning, a deconstruction of their Christian convictions. Recognizing these symptoms is just the first step. Preventative measures and even post-infection treatment are both necessary and possible.
Prescribe the Proper Treatment
Imagine if you went to your doctor to get treatment for COVID-19, and you noticed he never washed his hands between patients, he didn’t wear a facemask, never cleaned his exam rooms, used the same tongue depressor for every patient, and used dirty needles to administer shots. Needless to say, he wouldn’t be in business very long. Rather than treating any patient’s condition, he would actually be making matters worse by sharing the same germs from patient to patient. The treatment would be as bad, or worse, than the original issue for which you visited the doctor in the first place. This is the sad state of affairs in which we too often find ourselves in modern apologetics.
So much of what passes for apologetics today is built upon modern philosophical assumptions which suffer from the same disease of bad ideas the apologist is trying to combat. As prolegomena and the classical view of God (derived from natural theology via classical philosophy) were abandoned, an “infected” and impotent version of Christianity began to be defended. Popular apologetics far too often simply shares germs back and forth with the skepticism it seeks to answer. I would refer the reader to HERE and HERE for more on that.
By contrast, a proper treatment for this disease will only occur when the patient is brought back to the basic truths of reality that provide the foundation upon which a full-orbed Christian faith can be built. This is why the classical apologetics approach we teach at SES is so critical (see more HERE and HERE). Starting with the undeniable fact that man knows some truths about reality, we can reason step by step to the truthfulness of Christianity. When done properly, we can see that God is not an invisible Superman. He is wholly other, and the divine attributes stand or fall together. We can also appreciate the thousands of pages that have been written through the centuries by classical Christian thinkers addressing every question and issue that Jon or any other patient has raised.
Remember that some diseases take longer to treat than others. Bad ideas can become ingrained and influence many areas of our thinking. Nevertheless, treatment is possible. As philosopher Edward Feser notes, “Even modern secularists know [the language of natural theology and natural law], for they are no less human than their pagan ancestors. The problem is that they speak it at only a grade school or even kindergarten level, whereas the greatest of the ancients at least had high school level proficiency. But through ‘remedial education,’ they, like the ancient pagans, can be prepared for the graduate-level work afforded by divine revelation.”[3]
We must begin to make progress in this area so that every parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, pastor, and missionary have themselves moved beyond grade school in the war against bad ideas and are able to inoculate and treat those entrusted to their care.
Don’t Neglect Underlying Conditions
That brings us to our last point. As we know, COVID-19 is much more serious for people with underlying conditions. Even though we could cure COVID-19, all of us will still die at some point. Likewise, every one of us suffers from the underlying condition of our own sin that makes the disease of bad ideas even worse and ultimately leads to death. We will all succumb to the disease of sin without the ultimate cure, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as payment for our sins.
Everything above regarding treating the disease of bad ideas is what Thomas Aquinas called the preambles to the articles of faith. They alone do not constitute the fullness of the faith. Rather, biblical faith is an active trust in the authority of what God has revealed because we have reason to believe He is trustworthy. Reason provides the foundation upon which faith can take root. Salvation through Jesus (i.e., the Gospel) is itself a revealed truth to which we cannot reason. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable, and we have excellent reasons to believe it is true. Being a revealed truth is what makes the Gospel an article of faith to which we willfully ascent and act upon through the power of the Holy Spirit. Only then will we find ultimate healing.
In the meantime, wear your facemask, practice social distancing, and protect yourself from COVID-19. Be on guard, however, for the ever-present invisible contagion of bad ideas. Monitor yourself and others for symptoms, and remember the proper treatment. As Clement of Alexandria said regarding the foundational role of philosophy in the life of the believer,
Endnotes
[1] Please note that this reference does not imply agreement with all of Dr. Charlton’s views: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/six-problems-for-modern-christian.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/point-of-contact.html
[4] Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 323.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/2EUH7ga
El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark
EspañolINTRODUCCIÓN
En este escrito aprovecho de algunas cuestiones filosóficas y científicas mencionadas en la serie Dark para explicarlas de manera sencilla a personas que tal vez no habían escuchado o que habían usado erróneamente y que de alguna manera guardan relación con la teología cristiana.
Definiendo conceptos
En la serie de Dark se suele hablar de términos como “realidad” o “mundos” para distinguir entre el mundo de Jonas, el mundo de Martha y el mundo de origen. Asimismo, algunos youtuberos que analizaron la serie mencionaron “línea temporal” y “universo”. ¿Pero son todos estos conceptos la misma cosa? Bueno, eso depende del contexto. Déjame mostrarte cómo es que yo distinguiría estos términos y que podrían ayudarte para abordar cuestiones metafísicas relacionadas con la teología o la apologética, tales como los mundos posibles y el multiverso.
Definiré realidad como la suma de todas las cosas reales. En este sentido, la realidad es una categoría o clase más que un estado o atributo.
Por mundo quiero decir la suma total de todo lo que existe, incluidas las entidades abstractas no espaciotemporales. Ahora, si las entidades abstractas existen, entonces, tanto mundo como realidad son lo mismo en el presente contexto.
El universo significa el sistema total espaciotemporal de materia y energía (impersonal), es decir, la suma total de objetos materiales, de alguna manera accesible a los sentidos y a la investigación científica.
En cuanto a la línea temporal, este sería algo relativo. Por ejemplo, la línea temporal puede ser tanto la historia de principio a fin de la realidad como la de cada uno de sus universos que pudiera contener.
Y hablando de universos paralelos, por multiverso me refiero a la hipótesis que habla sobre la existencia de un conjunto de universos como el nuestro. Ahora, dado que establecimos que la realidad o el mundo contienen todas las cosas que son reales, entonces los universos sería más bien un subconjunto dentro de un mundo. Así que la idea de que universos paralelos que están conectados unos con otros como lo plantea la serie de DARK, es, al menos, lógicamente posible (si es físicamente posible, es algo que dejaré a los astrofísicos resolver).
Un mundo posible, es un mundo que podría haber sido diferente al actual, o sea, al mundo en el que nosotros vivimos.
Y si hablamos de mundos posibles, entonces estamos obligados a hablar del realismo modal de David Kellogg Lewis. Su teoría propone principalmente que todos los mundos posibles lógicos son tan reales como nuestro mundo (el mundo real o actual). Los mundos posibles en el realismo modal tienen las siguientes 6 características[1]:
Así que como puedes ver, dado 5 y 6, la serie de Dark estaría en lo incorrecto al hablar de mundos que se interconectan o de un mundo que da origen a otros mundos. Así que lo que realmente sucede en la serie, es que existe un mundo, una sola realidad, donde existen varios universos que se interconectan unos con otros a través de la máquina transuniversal de la que nunca se toman la molestia de describir su funcionamiento.
Libre albedrío
Para hablar de libre albedrío, es necesario definir el determinismo. Tomo la siguiente definición:
Con esto en mente, ahora pasemos a hablar sobre el libre albedrío como es expuesto en la serie. Según DARK (y varios youtuberos que analizaron la serie) no existe el libre albedrío como tal por el simple hecho de que los personajes nunca toman decisiones diferentes a como lo hicieron en el ciclo de tiempo anterior, cada vez que se repite el ciclo de tiempo, todos ellos “eligen” siempre lo mismo, lo que demuestra que el libre albedrío no es más que una ilusión—todo está determinado. Así, el único personaje con libre albedrío en la serie resultó ser Cluadia (al menos la Claudia del último ciclo). Ya que es ella quien logra escoger una opción diferente a como lo habían hechos las anteriores Claudias, y esto da paso a que se rompa el bucle temporal y la serie logra terminar en la forma a como lo hizo.
El problema con esto es que se vuelve incomprensible porque solo en Claudia se aplica el PPA y en los demás personajes no si todo está determinado.[3] Una vez que se repite el ciclo, este comienza con las mismas condiciones que el anterior y como todo lo físico está sujeto a las leyes de la causalidad, pues no hay forma de que las cosas ocurran de diferente manera[4].
Pero regresemos a la cuestión del libre albedrío que es lo que nos compete aquí. Mi mayor problema es la definición que toman de libre albedrío, que podría ser como sigue:
Como ustedes pueden ver, en Dark se confunde el libre albedrío libertariano con el principio de posibilidades alternas. La única relación que existe entre ambos es que el PPA es suficiente para el LAL, pero no necesario. Y aunque existen muchas versiones del LAL, considero que la siguiente es correcta:
Creo que esta versión del libre albedrío es correcta porque las ilustraciones de Harry Frankfurt son demoledoras para demostrar que la libertad (libertariana) no requiere de la habilidad de escoger diferente a la manera que la persona lo hace:
Si aplicamos esta ilustración a los personajes de Dark, podemos concluir que no se requiere que ellos escojan de otra manera a como lo hicieron en los ciclos pasados para que puedan tener libre albedrío (al menos libre albedrío libertariano).
Infinitos actuales
La última cuestión filosófica de la que quiero hablar es el concepto de infinito utilizado en la serie. En el mundo de Dark, tanto en el universo de Jonas como en el de Martha, el tiempo se ha repetido una y otra vez infinidad de veces desde el pasado. Por supuesto, esto es posible puesto que el mundo de Dark adopta la teoría B del tiempo, donde el flujo del tiempo es solo una ilusión y que tanto el pasado, el presente y el futuro son igualmente reales, que el tiempo no tiene tensión, es decir, el devenir temporal no es una característica objetiva de la realidad. Por eso es por lo que, en el último capítulo de la tercera temporada, cuando Claudia se encuentra con Adán, le dice lo siguiente: “Lo que ha ocurrido hasta ahora ha sucedido una infinidad de veces, pero este momento entre tú y yo aquí, es la primera vez que ocurre”. Pero en una teoría A del tiempo, donde el devenir del tiempo es una característica objetiva del tiempo, esto es metafísicamente imposible.
Primero definamos lo que es un infinito potencial y uno actual:
La relevancia filosófica de esta distinción es que algunos filósofos argumentan que el infinito actual no puede existir en la realidad. Por ejemplo, el filósofo medieval Al Gazali argumento a favor de la existencia del universo. Según Gazali, la serie de acontecimientos pasados fue formada al añadir un acontecimiento tras otro. La serie de acontecimientos pasados es como una secuencia de piezas de dominós cayendo una tras otra hasta que la última pieza que cae hoy es alcanzada. Pero él argumenta que ninguna serie formada por añadir un miembro tras otro puede ser actualmente infinita, pues uno no puede pasar por un número infinito de elementos a la vez.
William Lane Craig nos da el ejemplo de contar hasta el infinito:
Así que, si que, si la Teoría A del tiempo es correcta, esa escena donde Claudia se encuentra con Adán nunca llegaría a darse en primer lugar, porque no puedes pasar por una cadena de eventos infinitos desde el pasado hasta el presente.
Otra paradoja muy interesante que demuestra lo absurdo de esto, es la paradoja del ángel de la muerte propuesta por Alexander Pruss y Robert Koons[9]. De acuerdo con la paradoja, supón que existe una cantidad infinita de ángeles de la muerte. Digamos que tú estás vivo a la media noche. El ángel de la muerte núm. 1 te matará a la 1:00 a.m., si todavía estás vivo a esa hora. El ángel de la muerte núm. 2 te matará a la 12:30 a.m., si todavía está vivo en ese entonces. El ángel de la muerte núm. 3 te matará a la 12:15 a.m., y así sucesivamente. Una situación como esa parece obviamente concebible, dada la posibilidad de un número realmente infinito de cosas, más lleva a una imposibilidad: tú no puedes sobrevivir después de la media noche y, aun así, no puedes ser asesinado por ningún ángel de la muerte en ningún momento.
Este argumento se puede formular de la siguiente manera y es utilizado para argumentar a favor del pasado finito del universo:
CONCLUSIÓN
A pesar de todas las preguntas que podrían haberse dejado sin responder en Dark, así como el uso impreciso de las teorías del tiempo y de algunos conceptos filosóficos, eso no amerita que sea mala, al contrario, jugar con las imposibilidades lógicas y metafísicas siempre le dará ese toque maravilloso a las obras de ciencia ficción, y más si se pueden utilizar de referencia para explicar algunos conceptos de filosofía que de otra manera sería aburrido para para el lector ajeno a estos temas.
Notas
[1] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realismo_modal (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).
[2] W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, p. 280.
[3] De acuerdo con los expertos en comentarios de YouTube, los personajes que existen debido a ellos mismos por culpa del bucle (abuelos y nietos son la misma persona) no poseen libre albedrío, solo los personajes “originales” que son del universo de origen pueden tener libre albedrío. Por supuesto, lo curioso es que esta explicación hace nada para proveer dicha distinción a un nivel ontológico.
[4] Existe otra explicación para que Claudia pudiera elegir de forma diferente con el transcurso de los ciclos: la indeterminación o que al menos el universo tiene un cierto grado de indeterminación. Lo que significaría que con cada ciclo que pasa, este sería diferente al anterior en un grado micro, pero da la posibilidad de que después de millones de ciclos exista uno que será muy diferente a comparación de los anteriores. Puedes ver esta explicación con más detalle aquí: https://youtu.be/2M4hJsSArF8
[5] https://es.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P270/el-libre-albedrio/?fbclid=IwAR3ugT8Yyvsx-8kV2YoxR-L1lLFD0huewXPyrzuU7yfSvEroiFWdKwRmOfQ (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).
[6] Ibid.
[7] ROA FUENTES, Solange y OKTAC, Asuman. El infinito potencial y actual: descripción de caminos cognitivos para su construcción en un contexto de paradojas. Educ. mat [online]. 2014, vol.26, n.1 [citado 2020-07-29], pp.73-101. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1665-58262014000100004&lng=es&nrm=iso. ISSN 1665-5826
[8] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).
[9] http://robkoons.net/media/83c9b25c56d629ffffff810fffffd524.pdf (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
Jairo Izquierdo es miembro del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y filosofía del lenguaje. Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y director de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
The Power Of Pro-Life Images
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Bob Perry
Forty-six years ago today, the landmark court case we now know as Roe-v-Wade legalized abortion in America. Some think the case is “settled law.” But those of us, who value every human life, don’t see it that way. Roe-v-Wade no more settles the moral question of abortion than the infamous Dred Scott decision “settled” the idea that slaves had no right to U. S. citizenship. But what is the most effective way to convince people of that truth? How do we make a case for life in a way that cannot be dismissed as a simple “religious opinion”? We have an obligation to make a reasoned case for life. But we can also use the power of pro-life images to make that case hit home.
The Case For Life
Several years ago, a local group asked me to give a presentation on how to connect Christian apologetics and the pro-life cause. My connection to the Life Training Institute (LTI) made that task an easy one.
At LTI, we use science and philosophy to show what the unborn is, why it is valuable, and why that makes taking its life a grave moral wrong. The argument is not in the least bit “religious.” It is a rational and reasoned case that points to the most basic of all human rights — the right to life. As I told the group, the case we make is perfectly compatible and consistent with what the Bible teaches. And that is just one more reason to believe the Bible is a reflection of the truth about ultimate reality.
Tell And Show
The presentation I used started with science. I offered the plain, scientific evidence for when life begins that you can find in any embryology textbook. This isn’t a mystery. It begins at the moment of conception.
Next, we use basic philosophical reasoning. We show that there is no difference between the person you are today and the embryo you once were. Certainly, there is no difference that justifies taking your life at that earlier stage in your development.
Finally, after making a reasoned case for our position, we warn our audience that we are about to show a 60-second video clip. There is no narration on the video. It is nothing but a series of images that show the aftermath of abortion in all three trimesters of development.
We do this carefully and compassionately. We warn the audience that the video is graphic and give anyone who wants it a chance to leave the room or cover their eyes before we show it. And then we play this:
This Is Abortion Video from Life Training Institute on Vimeo.
Repercussions
The presentation I gave that day was no different than any other I’ve given. Nor was the reaction to it. But several months later, a friend from the group told me a story about what happened afterward.
He said that he had never seen the argument against abortion presented in quite the way I presented it. It had moved him to put up a Facebook post about it with a link to the video I had shown. No big deal.
But there’s more to the story.
My friend’s post drew some attention and discussion. Little did he know that some of that attention was from a European lady who my friend had never met or spoken to. He and she just happened to be bird lovers and members of the same online group of folks who shared that interest. The lady was an abortion supporter. She was also an atheist.
The images had horrified her.
Seeing Is Believing
Because the post had provoked her, she contacted my friend through the bird-lover group to challenge him about posting it. This initiated a back-and-forth discussion that lasted for weeks.
Eventually, the bird-loving lady not only changed her view on abortion; she was also compelled by my friend’s reasoning to take things a step further. He convinced her to reconsider objections to Christianity itself. By the time he told me the story, the European lady had become a Christian. She was soliciting my friend’s advice about how to approach her “hard-core atheist” son to invite him to do the same.
All because she saw an image.
One Thousand Words
Some people are impervious to careful arguments. For whatever reason, they refuse to consider the logic of the pro-life position. But even if those pro-life arguments fall on deaf ears, the impact of video can be monumental. The European bird lover is not alone. The same thing happened to Ruben Navarette.
In August of 2015, Navarette saw the Planned Parenthood videos that had leaked earlier that summer. For him, that changed everything. He wrote an article on the Daily Beast website explaining why the videos made him question his “pro-choice” position. Ruben Navarette had been a supporter of abortion rights for 30 years. But seeing what abortion is and what it does made him reconsider his position.
Pictures do something words never could.
The Power To Persuade
We use horrifying images in driving classes to convince teens of the dangers of texting and driving. We show before and after images of methamphetamine users to see where drug abuse leads. The state of Wisconsin recently began airing disturbing videos to boost awareness of sex trafficking. And who can ever forget the images they’ve seen of the Holocaust death camps?
We use images because they’re effective in making important points.
Seeing injustice has a way of connecting our intellects to our emotions. The power in that connection is what compels us to change our behavior. Images allow rational human beings to see exactly what abortion is all about.
Thoughtful And Effective
I would never advocate shoving pictures of aborted children in the face of an unsuspecting observer. It’s just plain rude. And while I understand the motivation to do that, I also know that shock value can rebound into anger and dismissal.
I don’t want to be rude, and I don’t want to shock people. But I will keep showing images of abortion because my goal is bigger than that.
I want to make people understand, through reasoned argumentation, what abortion actually is and why it’s wrong. After 46 tragic years, I want them to see the reality that Roe-v-Wade has unleashed on otherwise civil society over 60 million times. I want to appeal to their humanity by connecting their heads with their hearts. I don’t just want to change their personal feelings about it. I want to motivate those who condone abortion to change their minds and behaviors.
I don’t just want to talk about it. And I don’t just want to make people look at it.
I want to make it stop.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/31f9JYM
Too Good to be False with Tom Gilson
PodcastAre you skeptical that anyone could present fresh insights about Jesus after two thousand years? Tom Gilson has done just that in his new book, Too Good to Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality. Tom does this by highlighting what Jesus didn’t say and do, which is almost as shocking as what Jesus did say and do. Tom joins Frank and reveals these new insights about Jesus. He also helps you realize how feeble the arguments against the biblical Jesus are.
Too Good to Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality: https://amzn.to/2PVSh6E
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Busting One Of Bart Ehrman’s Favorite Bible Contradictions
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
Skeptics say that the gospels are riddled with contradictions and therefore are not reliable historical sources. And these same skeptics say that some of these contradictions are downright absurd. For example, agnostic NT scholar Bart Ehrman points out one of his favorite Bible contradictions in his book best-selling book, Jesus, Interrupted.
So there you have it. Either Jesus or John were having a ‘brain fart’. Take your pick.
Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?
If you look at the Bible in a wooden fashion, this contradiction does seem to be absurd on the face of it. So how should we understand this so-called discrepancy?
It seems to me that the writer of John is dealing with the disciples’ immediate reaction to Jesus’ words. The thought of him leaving fills them with sorrow, but if they had asked where he was going and grasped that it was to the Father, they would have recognized it was for Jesus’ advantage and theirs. Just look at the next verse: “But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” (Jn 16:6-7)
Looking back at the previous times Jesus was questioned that Ehrman points out, Peter had a bit of a bodyguard complex and didn’t want to hear about Jesus taking off by himself. So when he asks the question in John 13:36 about where Jesus is going, he doesn’t get it.
And in John 14:1-5, Jesus talks about going to his Father to prepare places for them. Thomas asks a question, but it’s because he’s not picking up what Jesus is laying down. He doesn’t ask what Jesus means by any of these things. And we know Thomas is a bit slow on the uptake, as we find out later in John’s Gospel. Thomas and Peter were both thinking naturally.
The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening
We see that Jesus is disrupted with another question in John 14 but isn’t asked another question in John 15. Jesus so far has mentioned his departure, but then in John 15:22-16:4, he talks about persecution headed their way. You know, some heavy stuff. Now their hearts are sorrowful. They fall silent with sadness after being so inquisitive earlier.
It’s at 16:5 that Jesus is saying, “guys…you still don’t get it. You went quiet on me with all these hard sayings of persecution and me leaving. But I’m not leaving you alone. I’m sending the Spirit in my place. Now is the time to be asking questions again, but this time let’s be a little sharper and ditch the gloomy pessimism.”
After this, they interrupt Jesus again twice more in John 16, showing they still don’t understand what he’s talking about. Read John 16:17-19:
The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?
Jesus then answers their questions, and finishes by saying “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
The light bulb finally seems to turn on. They quit looking at earthly things and start to see the spiritual realities Jesus is talking about. In John 16:28-30 the disciples exclaim, his disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?“
The metaphors are over in their minds. Jesus is now speaking clearly. They fell silent after some heavy sayings from Jesus, but now it’s dawning on them after Jesus prompts them to probe further. This interpretation doesn’t just come from me but is also supported by commentators and exegetes like CK Barrett, RCH Lenski, Craig Blomberg, John Gill, Christian Kuinoel, and Hermann Olshausen.
Only when we leave no room for conversational nuance would we have to conclude Jesus had a mental lapse or that something strange is going on with the writer of John. It seems like Bart’s reading is pretty wooden, and dare I say, fundamentalist. Many of his examples of alleged discrepancies in Jesus, Interrupted that are much more worth investigating and wrestling with. But this isn’t a golden moment for Ehrman here. And unfortunately, there are more bad ones like this. There’s nothing all that strange here.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3jRu92R
Reflecting God’s Character in Apologetics
CrossExaminedBy Mikel Del Rosario
Character Counts
Our spiritual conversations should reflect God’s character
Explaining reasons to believe doesn’t have to strictly be an intellectual thing. In fact, it shouldn’t be—especially when we’re talking to our skeptical friends, neighbors, and others who see Christianity differently. No, apologetics is way more profound in terms of its role in cultural engagement.
Character plays a key role in this. And it isn’t just about adding memorized apologetic answers to your life. Developing a Christian character needs to be part of our discipleship to Jesus. I can’t tell you how many times the importance of character has come up in my work with other apologists, in my ministry, and in my teaching at William Jessup University. Let me give you just four examples from my work at Dallas Theological Seminary.
The Relationship of Confidence and Character
First, I talked to my friend Sean McDowell about an activity he uses to help Christians think about how we can tend to approach engaging with atheists. We agreed that many times, it seems like your confidence in the faith is linked to your ability to stay respectful in difficult spiritual conversations. Sean said:
Next, I’m reminded of another one of my friends, Mary Jo Sharp. She explained her early experiences of feeling intimidated at the thought of sharing her faith. But now, she says that knowing what you believe and why you believe it can help you avoid that feeling of being flustered, defensive, or angry. I agree. I’m a firm believer that we, as Christian apologists, must reflect the character of God while engaging with people form different backgrounds.
The Blending of Conviction and Compassion
Third, I remember very clearly, John Dickson sharing this image of what he called “part of the genius of Jesus,” which was “flexing two muscles at the same time: The muscle of conviction and the muscle of compassion.” That stuck with me.
There’s also an exchange between John and my mentor, Darrell Bock, that happened later that day that comes to mind as part of this. We need to reflect God’s loving character and his engagement of the world. What do the Scriptures say about how we should engage?
John Dickson: 1 Peter 3:15 says that you’re to give an apologia but do this with prouteitos kai fobos: gentleness and respect. Because you can’t defend this Lord that you set apart in your heart…without gentleness and respect.
Darrell Bock: Colossians 4:5 and 6 goes to the same place: “Let your speech with outsiders always be gracious.” There’s an interesting combination of moral challenge and invitation that’s part of the way the Christian’s supposed to function…conviction and compassion together…you’ve got to have both. It can’t be one or the other or else it will absolutely fail.
Here, the Apostle Paul is emphatic about how grace should characterize a Christian Ambassador at all times. This, along with the demeanor commanded in 1 Peter 3:15-16, should inform the way we go about having spiritual conversations. Because the people we talk to about God, Jesus, and the Bible cannot just be “another notch in your belt.” We don’t get to do that. We have to love them.
The Importance of Listening and Loving
That imagery comes from Nathan Wagnon at Watermark church and it’s another one that’s stuck with me. Nathan’s the only person I know whose job title is “Pastor of Equipping and Apologetics” and he shared that idea while we were talking about the importance of loving people while doing apologetics. He’s the fourth example that comes to mind. He told me:
Confidence Leads to Compassion
As apologists, we are keenly aware of our responsibility to give reasons for the hope we have in Christ. But it’s that very hope—along with the confidence that comes with knowing what we believe and why we believe it—that allows us to be compassionate, gentle, and respectful. This is so important for engagement and dialogical apologetics.
Apologetics shouldn’t just be an intellectual pursuit. Our character and our tone must communicate our love for those we challenge with the gospel. And that means approaching apologetics as dialogue—a more relational, holistic, person-centered conversation—rather than an issue-centered debate. May God grant us the grace to reflect God’s character as we engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gdBh7i
Oposición Dominica al Conocimiento Medio
EspañolIn 1588 the Dominican theologians Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) and Tomas de Lemos (1555-1629) emerged as the leading opponents of middle knowledge. Báñez and Lemos advanced three major criticisms of the doctrine. [1] First, it contradicts Aquinas’s understanding of God’s general concurrence. For Aquinas, general concurrence constituted God’s sovereign generation of events by acting directly upon secondary agents (e.g., humans), moving them in advance and working through them to bring about those events.
In order to make God the author only of good events and not of bad ones, Aquinas derived a strong distinction between efficacious and inefficacious concurrence. Efficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God intends them to produce; in this case, God’s power over the agents is infallibly and irresistibly directed toward producing their intended effects. Inefficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God does not intend them to produce; in that case, God’s power over the agents is sufficient or sufficient for those agents to produce the effects God intended, but it is not infallibly or irresistibly directed toward those effects. Thus, imperfect creatures redirect God’s power toward producing sinful events, which cannot happen apart from that power. On Aquinas’s view, efficacious concurrence is intrinsically efficacious, and inefficacious concurrence is intrinsically inefficacious.
While efficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God positively volitions [2] , inefficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God does not intend to produce but merely permits. In contrast to Aquinas, Molina declared that general concurrence amounted to God’s sovereign causality of events by acting directly on those events and not on secondary agents. He therefore denied that secondary agents must be moved by God to use their causal power. Furthermore, Molina argued that intrinsically, God’s general concurrence is neither efficacious nor inefficacious. Rather, it is intrinsically neutral and is extrinsically made efficacious or inefficacious by the relevant secondary agents. [3]
Second, Báñez and Lemos argued that middle knowledge implied passivity in God, since making divine concurrence intrinsically neutral seemed to make God relate in exactly the same way to the good and evil actions of creatures. In the words of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “God would be neither the author of good nor of evil acts, at least as far as his intrinsic and free determination is concerned, because neither good nor evil acts would come from Him, at least as far as the performance of these acts is concerned.” [4] Accordingly, God’s essence as actus purus (pure act), as defined by Aquinas, is compromised if God were not to decree what free creatures would do in each set of circumstances, but instead sit back as a helpless spectator and watch what happens. [5] Third, Báñez and Lemos asserted that middle knowledge eviscerated God’s freedom, since God would know what He would freely do in any set of circumstances in which He found Himself. [6] Because they found these criticisms persuasive, the vast majority of contemporary Dominicans followed Báñez and Lemos in accusing Molina.
Regarding divine concurrence, Molina defended his position by asserting the incoherence of the Thomistic alternative held by his Dominican interlocutors for three reasons. First, the Dominicans could not explain God’s detailed knowledge of evil events. While the Dominican position had the ability to delineate God’s detailed knowledge of good events, as well as God’s general knowledge that good events would not occur in various circumstances (based on his decisions to concur inefficaciously rather than efficaciously with creatures), Molina held that the Dominican position lacked an explanation of how God knows exactly which evil events would occur. [7] Freddoso illustrates Molina’s point with the following example:
Second, Molina charged that the radical asymmetry proposed by the Dominicans between God’s causal contribution to good and evil events was nonsensical. For an evil event can differ from its benign analogue only by virtue of some historical circumstance. In this regard, Molina pointed out that the same act of sexual intercourse, with all its physical and psychological characteristics, is good if the couple is married, but bad if they are not. Imagine that the history of the couple’s relationship in both cases is exactly the same, except for the short visit to a priest where the marriage ceremony was performed. Is it not absurd, Molina asked, to suppose that God’s intrinsically efficacious concurrence is necessary in one case but not in the other? If creatures are capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is evil, why are they not equally capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is good? [9]
Third, Molina argued that on the Dominican view, God cannot truly will the virtuous events that He chooses not to predetermine through His intrinsically efficacious concurrence. For example, if God truly intends that Judas repent after betraying Jesus, and if God can effect this repentance simply through efficacious concurrence, then why does God refuse to grant such concurrence? In general, Molina held that the Dominicans made it impossible to blame creatures for their evil acts, since those acts necessarily resulted from the absence of God’s efficacious concurrence. Sins become acts of God’s omission, making God the author of sins as if they had been produced by God’s omission. Thus, Molina declared:
For these reasons, Molina concluded that if divine concurrence were intrinsically efficacious or inefficacious rather than, as he insisted, intrinsically neutral, then ostensibly free creatures would be nothing more than puppets controlled by God, who alone possesses freedom. [11]
In response to Báñez and Lemos’s second charge that middle knowledge implied divine passivity, Molina claimed that it does so only if one conceives of God in a Thomistic sense as pure act, the determining cause of all that occurs. But Molina insisted that one should abandon the doctrine of pure act as philosophically incoherent and contradictory to Scripture. For if God is pure act, then God’s attributes are not distinct from one another. But surely, for example, God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence denote two distinct properties, each of which is irreducible to the other. [12] This can be seen conceptually by observing that an entity could be all-powerful without being wholly loving, and an entity could be wholly loving without being wholly good. However, both attributes are philosophically necessary to God’s status, pro Anselm, as the greatest being conceivable, and both attributes are affirmed biblically (Genesis 17:1, 1 John 4:8). [13]
Rather than pure act, Molina believed that God must be understood as essentially infinite and tripersonal, an understanding that precluded divine passivity. God’s infinity, or the sum total of his great making properties, includes his omniscience, which in turn includes his middle knowledge. Taking advantage of this knowledge, the tripersonal God chooses, in his creative decree, all that will happen (the actual world [14] ) from all that could possibly happen given human freedom and natural indeterminism (the set of all feasible worlds [15] ). Far from sitting idly by, God is the active agent whose free decision is the indispensable factor in producing all human actions. [16] And God’s free decision produces these actions indeterministically, so that God cannot be accused as the author of sin. In fact, each of the three Trinitarian persons is grieved by sin (Gen. 6:6; Luke 19:41-44; Eph. 4:30). [17] This sorrow was so strong that it moved God to enter human history and become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, to solve the problem of sin once and for all and thus redeem all who place their faith in him (Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3-4; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14). [18]
Regarding Báñez and Lemos’ third charge that middle knowledge destroyed divine freedom, Molina emphasized that middle knowledge does not give God knowledge of what he himself would do under any set of circumstances. If God had such knowledge, Molina admitted, that would certainly destroy divine freedom. [19] Middle knowledge only gives God knowledge of what any possible creature would freely do under any conceivable circumstances. Here Molina emphasized that the way God has middle knowledge is supercomprehension, or his ability to infinitely perceive the essence or pattern of each individual or possible creature that exists solely in his imagination prior to the divine creative decree. Because these individual essences are abstract, not concrete objects, and God perfectly understands his own imagination, supercomprehension follows inevitably as a result. But it is logically impossible for God to supercomprehension himself, since God is a concrete object (even more than that, the only logically necessary concrete object), not an abstract object that exists within God’s imagination. God’s individual essence is also not an abstract object existing within God’s imagination, but is one and the same as his existence. [20] Furthermore, Molina insisted that supercomprehension can only occur when the knower infinitely transcends in fullness or totality that which is known. Since God cannot infinitely transcend his own perfection, the idea that God supercomprehended himself again proves to be self-refuting. Tying together the threads of his case, Molina asserted:
Molina went on to assert that in choosing to create the present world, God freely decides what all of his future actions in that world will be. These actions are in no way determined by God’s prevolitional knowledge, but are entirely dependent on God in his freedom. Therefore, God knows everything that he will do in the world in his free knowledge, not in his middle knowledge. In other words, God has foreknowledge of his own actions in the present world, not by knowing in his middle knowledge what he would do in every conceivable circumstance, but by knowing what he has decided, in his creative decree, to do in every future circumstance, by means of his almighty power to carry out his freely chosen will. [23]
Grades
[1] Robert Joseph Matava, “Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez and the Controversy de Auxiliis,” PhD diss. (University of Saint Andrews, 2010), 1 – 24.
[2] Translator’s note. The verb here is “to will” which has no literal translation in Spanish. “To will” expresses an exercise of will or an inclination toward something, not merely “wanting something.” The confusion arises because there are two words in English that are translated into Spanish as “querer” (to want) and “to will.” The first of these is what we know as “wanting something” in the sense of having a desire and intention for it. While the second can be specified as a volition of the agent.
[3] Alfred J. Freddoso, “Introduction,” in Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 18 – 19.
[4] Réginald Gartigou Ñagrange, The One God , trans. Bede Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), 466.
[5] William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience , Studies in Intellectual History 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 270
[6] Domingo Báñez, Pedro Herrera, and Didacus Alvarez, Apologetica fratrum prædicatorum in provinciâ Hispaniæ sacræ theologiæ professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinæ nuncupati (Madrid, 1595), 3.25; Thomas of Lemos, Acta omnia et Congregatioum disputationum, quae coram SS. Clement VIII and V Panlo Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa controversy et illa magna de auxiliis divinae gratiæ (Lovain, 1702), 8.5.
[7] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordiam, continens responses ad tres objectiones et satisfactiones ad 17 animadversiones (Libson, 1589), 4 – 7.
[8] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 39.
[9] Ibid., 40; Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 4.14.13.53.2.13.
[10] Molina, Foreknwowledge , 4.14.13.50.14.
[11] The Dominicans did not feel that they were denying human libertarian freedom. In fact, they argued that creatures possessed libertarian freedom, though without using the modern phrase. But Molina found these claims philosophically incoherent and concluded that despite what they said, the Dominicans ended up with a compatibilist freedom.
[12] However, Molina also held that neither God’s omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence is separable from God’s essence. So I don’t think the evidence allows us to conclude what Molina’s position was (or even whether he had one) concerning divine simplicity. It seems to me that Molina’s doctrine is compatible with either divine simplicity (the mainstream Christian view) or divine univocity (the minority view held, for example, by Scotus), depending on whether one thinks the doctrine applies at the level of essence or at the level of attributes.
[13] Molina, Concordia , 1.14.13.19.2.10.
[14] Translator’s note. Original: “the actual world.” It does not refer to a temporal adjective, i.e., to the “contemporary world.” But to the world that God has actualized or made real . “In religious jargon, it is not unusual to refer to God as creating the world. However, in the semantics of possible worlds, this is semantically improper. Rather, God’s creative activity must be referred to as “creating the heavens and the earth,” but as actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs have no beginning, and the language of creation implies this).” The above excerpt was taken from the Scientia Media section of the article on Middle Knowledge in the Internet Philosophical Encyclopedia. Consulted on July 24, 2020 at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/ See also definitions (3) and (5) of the Royal Spanish Academy: https://dle.rae.es/?id=0d341nz (3) tr. To put into action, to carry out. (5) tr. To make abstract or virtual linguistic elements become concrete and individual. Consulted on February 15, 2019. See also: http://www.filosofia.org/enc/ros/actualiz.htm ; Consulted on July 24, 2020.
[15] Translator’s note. Original “feasible world”. In modal logic, feasible worlds are a subset of worlds within the possible worlds that, given a set of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, are within the power of God to actualize (see note 14). Others call them “metaphysically possible worlds”. See Moreland, J.P. & Lane Craig, William. “ Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview ”, 2nd Ed. Kerigma Publications, pp. 609-616, Keathley, Kenneth, “ Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach ”. Ed. B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 16-18, 38-41, 149-152, Lane Craig, William. “ The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom ” ed. Wipf and Stock Publishers, pp. 129 – 13, MacGregor, Kirk, “ Luis de Molina: Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge ”. Ed. Zondervan 2015, pp. 79 – 96. For the definition of possible worlds, see What is the logic of possible worlds about? , Jaramillo, Raúl, https://www.apologetica.com.ar/logica-mundos-posibles/ ; consulted on July 24, 2020.
[16] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordia , 26 – 27.
[17] Molina, Concordia , 5.19.6.1.26.
[18] Ibid., 3.14.13.46.18, 20.
[19] Molina, Foreknowledge , 4.14.13.52.13.
[20] Here Molina focused on a trivial Thomistic idea, since Aquinas believed that the notion of God as pure act was logically equivalent to the identity between God’s essence and his existence. Molina takes these to be two entirely different notions, interpreting pure act as the actualization of God completely determining everything that happens and the identity between essence and existence as the Anselmian claim that the idea of God in the mind, including in the mind of God, cannot exist apart from a concrete reality of God ( Appendix ad Concordiam , 13, 36, 41).
[21] This reflexive understanding of “what is knowable” is implicit in the immediate context and is in the Latin construction “quodam eminentiori modo, qua,m illud sit cognoscibile” ( Concordia , 4.14.13.52.13).
[22] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.
[23] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.
Excerpt Luis de Molina: Life and Theology , MacGregor, Kirk, Ph.D.
Translation and Annotations: Eng. Raúl Jaramillo
What Does Paul Say About Homosexuality?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
In this post, we’re asking the question: What does Paul say about homosexuality? To find out, we need to investigate Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Let’s consider each text in turn.
Romans 1:26-27
This passage is probably the most significant biblical text addressing homosexuality. In the broader context, we read that God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness. Even though people know God exists through natural revelation, they have suppressed the truth and worshipped idols instead. Therefore, God hands them over to their depraved minds. Verses 26-27 give us an example of this depravity:
So what exactly does Paul condemn here? Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian notes, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation.“1 Elsewhere he states that Paul “explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment.”2
That is to say, and Paul doesn’t condemn homosexuality in general. He merely condemns the excesses or abuses that were common in the ancient world. These excesses included pederasty, master/slave rape, or prostitution. If Paul, according to Vines, would have seen examples of committed, monogamous same-sex partners, he would have celebrated them.
In response to Vines, I simply note that nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to specific types of homosexuality like master/slave relations, pederasty, or prostitution. Rather, he condemns homosexuality in general terms.
If he wanted to condemn pederasty, for example, he could have simply used the Greek word paiderastes. If he meant to condemn a master appeasing his sexual desire with his male slave, then why state that they were “consumed with passion for one another?” Doesn’t that sound like two consenting adults? Furthermore, why mention the women engaging with one another when we have no record of female master/slave or pedophilia relations from the ancient world?
Contrary to Vines, Paul condemns homosexuality in general (not limited to specific abuses) and roots his condemnation in creation itself. This explains why he writes that homosexual activity is an “exchange of natural relations that are “contrary to nature” (para physin in the Greek). Other revisionists (not Vines) take this to mean that some men’s sexual appetites were so insatiable, that they went against their heterosexual nature to have sexual relations with other men. In other words, “going against nature” simply means going against one’s heterosexual orientation. Thus, the text doesn’t condemn those with a homosexual orientation engaging in sexual activity.
But this explanation fails on multiple fronts. Not only do ancient authors repeatedly use the phrase “para physin” to refer to homosexual activity (not going against one’s orientation), Paul goes to great lengths to state that his position is rooted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3. In the surrounding context, he uses phrases such as “creation of the world” (1:20), “creator” (1:25), “birds and animals and creeping things” (1:23), “women” and “men” (1:26-27), “image” (1:23), “lie” (1:25), “shame” (1:27), and “death” (1:32). These allusions to the creation narrative indicate that Paul sees homosexuality as an affront to God’s design for marriage as outlined in Genesis 1-2.
Self-professed lesbian Bernadette Brooten writes in her scholarly book Love between Women:
Romans 1:26-27 doesn’t merely condemn excesses. It condemns homosexual activity in general as an affront to God’s design for sexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10
I lump these two together because they are similar in nature.
Paul’s use of arsenokoitai is the first known use of this word in the ancient world. It’s a compound word of man (arsen) and bed (koite). The word literally means “bedders of men.” It’s a term that conveys action, which is why the NIV translation of the word “men who have sex with men” is preferable to one like the NASB’s which simply reads “homosexuals.” Scholars are in agreement that Paul coined this term using the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13:
This text clearly condemns both partners for participating in homosexual activity. It says that “both of them have committed an abomination.” In the same way, 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 appears to condemn both partners as well. Not only does Paul condemn arsenokoitai (bedders of men), right before that he condemns malakoi (soft ones).
The Greek word malakoi has a broad range of meaning. It can refer to men who have long hair, wear makeup, have a fondness for expensive clothing, gluttons, the lazy who avoid manual labor, or the acceptance of being penetrated by other men. So which of these does Paul condemn here?
It’s noteworthy that the Jewish philosopher Philo twice uses the word malakoi to refer to passive homosexual partners. It’s also noteworthy where Paul places this word in his list of vices. He places it right between moikoi (adulterers) and arsenokoitai. When a word has a broad range of definitions, context usually is the strongest determiner of the author’s meaning. Considering malakoi’s placement in the sentence, it’s likely that Paul’s referring to a passive male partner in homosexual sex. After all, it’s hard to imagine that Paul would say that men who like designer clothing or a good chick flick will not inherit the kingdom of God. He must be referring to something more blatant.
Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?
As I’ve alluded to numerous times in this blog series, revisionists argue that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns abuses — not lifelong, monogamous relationships. Revisionists argue that homosexual orientation and committed homosexual relationships were completely foreign in the ancient world. Therefore, the biblical authors didn’t condemn them. But is this an accurate assessment?
Louis Crompton, a gay man and scholar of queer studies states in his book Homosexuality and Civilization:
In other words, while Crompton supports homosexuality, he says the revisionists’ arguments don’t work. It’s a massive leap in logic to think that Paul would have embraced homosexual relationships if he had only seen good examples of them.
Furthermore, the idea of homosexual orientation wasn’t completely foreign to the ancient world. Thomas K. Hubbard, a non-Christian classical scholar notes in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome:
Notice what Hubbard says here. He argues that people in the ancient world experienced homosexual orientation and self-identified as homosexuals.
In Plato’s Symposium, a philosophical text depicting a contest of extemporaneous speeches by notable men, speaks to the reality of homosexual orientation. Consider these excerpts from two of the speeches:6
In other words, he speaks of a loving, life-long commitment between homosexual partners. Or consider this other speech:
Here, again, is another example of life-long homosexual commitments. Commenting further on this subject, N. T. Wright argues:7
In the end, the revisionist arguments fall short. Nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to homosexual abuses. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that Paul was ignorant of homosexual orientation.
Concluding Thoughts
Based on the above evidence, Paul condemns homosexual behavior in general — not just abuses. He condemns both men and women in Romans 1, and both the active and passive partners in 1 Corinthians 6. The revisionist arguments that Paul had no concept of homosexual orientation, and therefore, couldn’t have condemned it lacks historical backing.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/307D1ta