Monday quote

Rights and obligations are brother principles, both owing their existence to the God who made us creatures of equal dignity, possessing the logos that makes our self-government possible.

Matthew J. Franck

Reading atheist literature

I have heard it said at least once that if Christianity is true it should be able to stand against its critics. It should have good answers to those who find problems with it.

Some also suggest that believers can and should read books antagonistic to the faith because if Christianity is true then our beliefs will stand.

I happen to think that the basic concept behind these thoughts is valid. Truth refutes falsehood. Let God be true and every man a liar (Rom 3:4). If Christianity is the true worldview then all facts and experiences will be consistent with it.

The problem with this position is that we are finite. So while a robust faith can take it on the nose, how robust is our faith? How well equipped is the average Christian to receive challenges to his beliefs?

Faith is more than well-grounded correct knowledge. And I have no problem with those of a less intellectual disposition who are content to follow Christ as best they can without concern with to cognitive challenges. Nevertheless, there are challenges to one's faith in reading authors antagonistic to God. Falsehood can be very persuasive. Many struggle to distinguish dialectic from rhetoric; many lack adequate foundation and confidence in truth; and many struggle to identify the false presuppositions or interpretations clothed as facts.

Therefore, spending significant time reading material inconsistent with Christianity is not helpful. This is not a matter of whether Christianity can weather the storms, it is whether you can. Don't assume you know more than you do or that you are stronger than you are.

It is a battle. The war for your soul is real. Jesus said he sends us out as lambs amongst wolves (Luk 10:3). Wolves seek to destroy lambs and are successful in doing so. Sheep have no defense against predators and lambs are even more vulnerable.

Consider this decision. Now I don't know where this guy was at prior to reading so many books on atheism but I think this sort of thinking is incredibly foolish.

I was raised in a Christian Fundamentalist home my whole life. From one through 12th grade I was home schooled, and was taught everything through the Christian fundamentalist lense. After High school I attended a hyper fundamentalist place called Honor Academy. At Honor Academy I gained interest in philosophy and Christian apologetics and decided to dedicate my life to Christian apologetics. I am 23 now and since then I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler's books, including his encyclopedia A-Z twice, and his Systematic Theology twice, I have read Plantinga, McDowell, Craig, Ravi, Moreland, Holding, Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan Etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler's school to study apologetics and philosophy.

This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. So I did some research and made a list of over 100 books. I am now at book 76 and consider myself a confident Atheist.

The author of one of these books, John Loftus, argues that Christians should read the top sceptical books against Christianity,

If your faith can withstand our arguments then you will be a better informed Christian with a much stronger faith. If your faith cannot withstand our arguments then your faith wasn’t worth having in the first place. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE!

But you have everything to lose. Should I intentionally surround myself with as many ravenous wolves as I can find; if I survive I am stronger for it, and if I get torn to pieces...?

Men are fallen so they reason fallibly: both Christians and non-Christians. But Paul warns us concerning men who reject the truth. He writes to the Thessalonians,

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) 

Like all men their reasoning is fallen, but they are also susceptible to lies. They have a disposition towards believing falsehood in preference truth. If the Bible is true then those who write against the Bible are likely to be writing rhetoric for nonsense. What benefit is it for those who know the truth to spend so much time listening to error?

Now I am not saying that we can isolate ourselves from the world's agenda. I read a lot of literature (books, journals, internet) and much of it has many subtle assumptions that are hostile to the Bible—though I should be cautious. Nor am I saying that it is wrong to ever read atheist material. I have read the odd atheist book. And I think intellectually solid Christians should read and refute atheist claims. Rather I am arguing that while the Bible may be an anvil that has worn out many a hammer, your understanding of the Bible may not be so sturdy. And we are not involved in merely a dispassionate discussion about various ideas, this is a war with your soul at stake. Do not think you are stronger than you are. Paul warns the Corinthians against evil and participating in sin although his warning seems apropos here,

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

Desiring and completing

In the second letter to the Corinthians Paul gives some advice on giving money. He makes a comment which, while applying to money in the context, seems to have broader application.

And in this matter I give my judgment: this benefits you, who a year ago started not only to do this work but also to desire to do it. So now finish doing it as well, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. (2 Corinthians 8:10-11) 

Here was something (giving) which the Corinthians started to do. Not only did they begin to do this work, they desired to do it. Further, Paul says that the desire needs to be matched by finishing the work.

It is not enough to have a keen desire, the desire must both be acted on and completed. This corresponds to Jesus' parable about the 2 sons.

“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” (Matthew 21:28-31)

Desire and intent is not enough, it must be matched by action. As James says,

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:22-26)

Monday quote

Monopolists, apparently, can conceive of only one way of making money, which is bullying consumers and competitors to put up and shut up. Furthermore, it also appears to mean that past mistakes have to be repeated at a larger, and ever more ridiculous, scale.

Michele Boldrine and David K Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly.

Love of money

Paul's first letter to Timothy gives us an example of Scripture which some people under-read and some over-read; though both represent a misreading of the text due, in part, to not paying enough attention. Paul writes,

For the love of money is a root of all evils. (1 Timothy 6)

It is not uncommon to hear that money is the root of all evil. While having money is associated with temptations that are less common for the poor, the misquote places the source of the evil in the an amoral object, or rather the possessor of the object. It implies that having money is reflective of an evil heart.

When read right, that the love of money is a source of evils, we avoid this error. By seeing that covetousness is the problem we see that the desire to obtain money causes a great many evils, and it can be a temptation to all men, not just the wealthy.

Somewhat less common is the idea that every specific evil in the world has as its root, the love of money. Some modern translations translate this the passage as,

the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

While a true statement and in line with what I am arguing, it is not warranted in a literal translation.

We can see that not every evil has its source in the love of money. Consider the sin of Adam and Eve. This passage should be read proverbially. The context concerns false teachers, the necessity of contentment, and those who long to be rich.

Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all evils.

Paul's phrase does not require one to think that every evil ever seen is motivated by money, it merely is a proverbial type statement directed at people who want to be rich: showing them that this desire will lead them into many evils.

Paying close attention to both what exactly the passage does say (love of money) and the genre and context (people longing to be rich) helps the reader understand what Paul is saying here. Covetousness, especially coveting money, will lead men into all manner of wickedness.

Monday quote

The philosophers Hume and Kant, in a frenzy of high conceit, helped to banish “testimony” from the modern world as a reliable source of knowledge. We want an idolatrous way of knowing that we think is indubitable. But we are finite, and so it has to be testimony or nothing. Jesus is Lord, so it is testify and live or languish and die.

Douglas Wilson.

Monday quote

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination.

Andrew Lang.

The Books of the Bible: a Reader's Bible

A few years ago I posted on The New International Translation's The Books of the Bible. I
bought one some time ago and have read it from time to time so I have some further thoughts. I am not going to comment on the translation because the selling feature of the book is layout; other than say I grew up on the NIV (pre-update) and I like it. It is quite an easy reading version which probably helps a Reader's Bible. And I think that the NIV update made some improvements in translation but its gender neutral accommodations were unnecessary.

In general The Books of the Bible is a reasonable Bible to buy or use; I say this as I have several negative comments (of various levels of importance) below that may suggest otherwise. I wrote this current post before re-reading my earlier post and many of my thoughts before I bought the book turned out to be the case on reading it. The change in book order now seems less sensible.

It is important to read the Bible in detail at times, but reading the Bible as a story, at least the specific books as a story, is just as important. While meaning can hang on a clause, a word, or even a tense; the larger context is vitally important and mitigates against over-interpreting. I am more likely to read larger passages of the Bible (1–3 chapters) at a time than a few verses so I am not certain that a Reader's Bible is as important to someone like me but I have heard that others are reading larger chunks of Scripture this way. As such, Books of the Bible is a useful addition.

Positives

Single column. I would prefer all Bibles use a single column. I realise that because the Bible is over 700,000 words, creating a book-sized Bible can be difficult and various solutions include font size, font face, thin paper, and double (even triple) column. The column width is about 80 characters, I think readability would possibly be enhanced reducing this to 70 characters.

Paragraphing. This should be standard for Bible and is common to my experience. I grew up reading paragraphed Bibles and infrequently read one divided by verses. That verse formatted Bibles are still produced makes no sense. Verses are solely for reference, not for interpretation.

Speech. Dialogue is paragraphed in a modern format, that is, new paragraphs with a new speaker; the same format as one would find in a novel. Why some modern paragraphed Bibles do not do this is unknown to me.
Poetry. The poetry is indented but the parallelisms are not indicated, that is the second line of verse is not indented further than the first. This is my preference as it allows the reader to decide on what are the parallels or whether they exist; some of the parallelisms in the dual indent system found in other Bibles seem forced or even mistaken. Stanzas are rightly separated by line spaces which is the equivalent of paragraphing in poetry. The only problem is that the NIV also uses a list format for some of its prose which is effectively formatted the same as the poetry; I am not certain of a good solution.

Section headings. There are none. Not that I mind them but they shouldn't be in a Reader's Bible. Personally I think that section headings should be to the side of the text, and probably in a different font-face rather than bolded, italicised, or enlarged.

Neutral

I prefer chapter and verse numbers, even with this style of Bible. I think they can be made more indistinct by lightening them to grey, and making chapter numbers smaller and removing them from the textblock. I do not think verse numbers significantly affect my ability to read but I am aware that for many this can be a distraction. I once had a Bible with Strongs numbers* attached to various words and coding for tenses of verbs, as well as verse numbers, footnotes and cross references. A friend found my Bible impossible to read and couldn't understand how I could: I just ignored the numbers and letters when I didn't need them.

No red letter. I don't have strong views on this. It is probably preferable for a Reader's Bible.

First Testament. This is the name given to the Old Testament. Though I don't mind it I think it unnecessary. We have the New Testament, Jesus describes the new covenant in his blood, and refers to new wine and old wine. Thus Old Testament is accurate and not in anyway disparaging.

Endnotes. I generally hate endnotes through a book (usually at end of chapters). Footnote or back of entire book for me, preferably the former. The benefit is that the footnotes do not distract you, the negative is that when you want to find the note it takes time to find the endnotes for the book and then the specific one on the page, reading through them all to find the passage (notes are not numbered). Probably the right decision but a hassle if you are a regular reader of footnotes.

Negatives

Paragraphing. 4 levels of paragraphing! Intent, line space times 1, 2 and 3. 3 line spaces is also followed by a dropcap for the new paragraph. How do they justify this? 1 level of paragraphing is adequate and at the most 2: indent and single line space. And no capital words or dropcaps.

Book order. The Old and New Testaments are completely rearranged. Now I have some sympathy with placing the Old Testament in the order from the time of Christ and grouping them into the Law, Writings and Prophets. The Books of the Bible groups them differently using History, Prophets and Writings and includes several books in History that the Jews would include in the Prophets or Writings (such as Judges and Ruth). But the New Testament order is completely unhelpful. Firstly it is difficult to navigate without the contents because the order is unfamiliar. But the order is not overly sensible. One could go with the traditional order or the Greek Orthodox order. But they group them around the gospels and this is forced in places. Luke is grouped with Acts (sensibly) but also all of Paul which therefore accounts for the bulk of the New Testament. Paul's letters are chronological which could be helpful. John is grouped with his letters and Revelation (makes sense). Mark with Peter's letters (Peter source of Mark presumably) and Jude (probably due to similarities with Peter). Matthew with James and Hebrews because they're left over. But Hebrews would be better with the Lukan section. The letters are not like the gospels. And if another gospel is going to oust Matthew for pole position why Luke? Mark if they think it written first or, better still, John for its parallels to Genesis.

Number of books. This just fails. Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were single books that were split in the Septuagint. I have long thought that in modern Bibles these 6 books should be 3. The Books of the Bible starts the process then joins Samuel to Kings (why) and Chronicles to Ezra and Nehemiah. Luke is adjacent to Acts and Acts is titled separately but they are incorrectly considered a single book in the contents.

Name. The Books of the Bible. Really! It does show up in an internet search but most of the results are tables of contents for the Bible.

---

*Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers actually.

Monday quote

Physical courage, which despises all danger, will make a man brave in one way; and moral courage, which despises all opinion, will make a man brave in another.

Charles Caleb Colton

Monday quote

His role as a "conservative" is to conserve the changes that are imposed by the progressives.

Monday quote

Authority naturally flows to those who take responsibility. Authority routinely flees those who seek to blame others.

Douglas Wilson.

The name of God

Some men worship the sun god. Some worship the moon god. Others worship the god of the harvest, the gods of the weather, the god of fertility; gods of love and gods of power, gods of life and gods of death, gods of justice and gods of war.

I worship the Creator God: the Most High God. He made the sun, the moon, the plants. He made all the gods.

Who is this God?

The Creator God? Yes. But he existed before the sun shone, or the moon ruled the night. Before there was lightning and thunder, and water to make the plants grow. Before the earth and sky were made. Even before there was light and darkness.

The Most High God? Yes. Though he made all the gods. Before there were any angels he was God. He existed before the principalities and powers; before the cherubim and seraphim; before any creature to whom men bow.

He is Creator God but he was God before he made creation. He is the Most High God but he was God before he made the gods. Before anything was he was God. Who is this God? What do we call this God? What is his name?

Before anything God existed. He has always existed; he exists now; he will always exist. His name is

I AM

Monday quote

Believing in Jesus counts for very little until belief becomes obedience.

Trevor Geddes

Faith and works

Faith is contrasted with works when we suppose that somehow our behaviour merits God's grace. It doesn't. But to suppose that what we do does not otherwise matter is false. God saved us to do good works. The work we are to do is either general commands (eg. show hospitality) or specific tasks that God has for us. This is why James says that he shows his faith by the works he does (Jam 2:18). His works are not salvific, but they demonstrate his salvation. We must not think works are unimportant, or optional for the Christian. Dallas Willard writes in The Spirit of the Disciplines.

We have simply let our thinking fall into the grip of a false opposition of grace to "works" that was caused by a mistaken association of works with "merit". And history has only made things worse. It has built a wall between faith and grace, and what we actually do. Of course we know there must be some connection between grace and life, but we can't seem to make it intelligible to ourselves.

In fact, to not do the good works we are commanded to do is disobedience. Obedience is a necessary component of the Christian walk. Redeemed men cannot walk in disobedience. To walk in disobedience is to not be included in the elect. But to try and earn our salvation by doing good works is a failure. We cannot be completely righteous and and righteous acts do not atone for our sin. We need righteousness imputed to us. As John says, Jesus is the atonement for our sins yet,

Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1Jo 2:4-6)

Lest this seem impossible, God gives us grace, and grace comes before obedience. God delivered the Israelites from slavery before they were given the Law. We receive Christ's salvation before we are to walk in obedience to him. But just as many died in the desert because of disobedience, so we should also tread carefully lest we be wanting (1Co 10:12; Eph 5).

Monday quote

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Winston Churchill (1874–1965).