Monday quote

Later revelation has a fuller understanding of the truth given in earlier stages, but the later unfolding cannot undo any previous presentation of the truth.

Adolph Saphir and Arno C. Gaebelein

The poverty curve

In Bill Gates' annual newsletter, 2014 edition he addresses 3 myths about global poverty.

1. Poor countries are doomed to stay poor
2. Foreign aid is a big waste
3. Saving lives leads to overpopulation

All 3 sections are interesting; I have mixed thoughts about number 3, though noticed after I had read it that is was authored by Melinda Gates.

In the first section Gates has a graph on the change in individual wealth of the world over the last 50 years. Note that the x-axis is logarithmic.

This comes about through productivity and trade. Wealth is created. Some of the big drivers of productivity include rule of law, private property, and low tax which suggests that had we seen optimum conditions in the last few decades we may have seen even better improvements. Still, this is encouraging. Gates mentions several other drivers such as health and education. Not mentioned (as a cause of productivity) is energy which allows significantly more output per person. The climate change paragraph can be ignored, developing nations need cheap and reliable energy, not low carbon energy.

Luke in the New Testament

There is little doubt in my mind that Luke wrote the gospel attributed to him and there is strong early church evidence for this. The Acts of the Apostles was the sequel, so to speak.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-5)

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, (Acts 1:1-2)

We have little direct mention of Luke in the Bible. Paul mentions him in the salutations of 3 letters,

• Luke the beloved physician greets you, (Colossians 4:14 )
• Luke alone is with me. (2 Timothy 4:11)
• Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. (Philemon 1:23-24)

We can be confident that Luke wrote Luke and Acts, that he was a physician, and that he was a companion of Paul. Information about Luke beyond that is more speculative, though still possibly true. Below are some further possible claims about Luke based on close reading of Scripture, style of writing and reasonable assumptions.

Authorship
Many have made the claim that (one of) the anonymous author(s) of Hebrews is Luke, notably Allen in recent years in Lukan authorship of Hebrews. Allen makes the case reasonably well and also argues that Luke was Jewish, and that he was the amanuensis for the letters to Timothy and Titus.

Personhood
Luke is frequently thought to be a Gentile for several reasons including his excellent Greek and the exclusion of him from the men of the circumcision listed in Colossians—Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus. This is possible and would make him the only non-Jewish author of the New Testament (and the Bible, save possibly the book of Job). Others have made a good case for him being a Jew.

Allusions in Scripture
Paul mentions the disciple who is well known for the gospel in his letter to the Corinthians.

And we have sent with him [Titus] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; (2 Corinthians 8:18 KJV)

It is uncertain how "his praise is in the gospel" is to be understood so the NASB adds clarifying words and the ESV interprets this as preaching.

We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches; (NASB)

With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel. (ESV)

Many have noted that Mark calls his work the gospel (whether intentionally as a title or not) and this could easily apply to Luke which (probably) postdates Matthew and Mark. So the reference to the praise/ fame of the gospel could refer to Luke's gospel as opposed to, say, Apollos' preaching. This would have ramifications in the dating of Luke (and Matthew and Mark).

In Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Wenham notes that Luke seems very familiar with much of the later detail of the Jesus' life and he follows Mark less in the latter aspect of the gospel. Further, Luke is the only writer to mention the sending out of the 70 and devotes more space to this than the sending out of the 12. From this Wenham speculates Luke may have been one of the 70 and much of the latter material of his gospel is first-hand knowledge.

This possibility that Luke may have met Jesus in person could be strengthened by a further interesting point. Luke only identifies Cleopas (Luke 24:18) of the 2 men on the road to Emmaus. This may be because Cleopas asked a question. Wenham speculates that the other man was in fact Luke.

It seems less likely that all these suggestions are simultaneously true. The author of Hebrews mentions that he was a second generation believer.

It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, (Hebrews 2:3)

Nevertheless, these possible identities are worth pondering.

Monday quote

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

C. S. Lewis

Monday quote

My parents taught us that ingenuity was never to be expended on the text, making it tell you things you would rather hear. But rather, once you had let the Scriptures speak to you, straight up, ingenuity was fine in looking for creative and effective places to obey. Use your wits to apply the text, not to evade the text.

Douglas Wilson.

One Spirit

The theme of spiritual gifts is frequently noted in 1 Corinthians 12. The types of gifts and their hierarchy are noted. Yet Paul refutes any idea that those with prominent gifts are more valuable in God's sight. It can be seen that God gives gifts as he sees fit.

However what struck me some time back was the apologetic against polytheism.

Now concerning spiritual gifts [things], brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans [Gentiles] you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12)

Here Paul addresses a question from the Corinthians. They had probably asked about spiritual issues and Paul states, "Concerning [the] spiritual" and then he reminds them of their previous life as idolaters. Paul is contrasting the Spirit they received with the spiritual realm they previously were a part of. While within paganism their are many demons (1 Corinthians 10) there is one Holy Spirit. And it is the fact there is one Spirit and not several which shapes he subsequent response.

• The Spirit cannot say Jesus is accursed
• The lordship of Jesus is affirmed by the same Spirit

Note the repeating theme during the listing of the gifts,

• There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit
• There are varieties of service, but the same Lord
• There are varieties of activities, but it is the same God
• To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
• For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom
• To another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit
• To another faith by the same Spirit
• To another gifts of healing by the one Spirit
• To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit.

Note also the Trinitarian allusion in verses 4–6: same Spirit, same Lord, same God.

Then Paul goes on to discuss the unity of the church by analogy to the body because,

in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Sure, we can learn about the types of gifts but this seems secondary to the emphasis on the Spirit being one. Paganism may acknowledge and worship many spirits but for Christians there is only one and the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit may manifest in a variety of ways, but he always testifies to Jesus and can never deny him.

Monday quote

A rational assent to the truth of the Bible is one ingredient in the Christian faith.

John Wesley (1703–1791), Reason for the Hope Within.

From French atheist to Christian theologian

Christian theologian Guillaume Bignon writes of his conversion, "How God turns a French atheist into a Christian theologian."

A number of people lately have been intrigued to meet a French theologian, and have asked me to tell them the story of how I, a French atheist, became a Christian scholar. Even the theologians and apologists I met recently at the ETS Conference in Baltimore (where by God’s grace I was delivering my first scholarly paper) seemed to care (understandably) more about my conversion from atheism than my immediate theology paper! Therefore, it seemed fitting to type it up properly, to have a clean telling of that story of God breaking into my life, ready to be shared with people who ask. So here it is

He tells of how he became an atheist at a young age then his honest investigation into Christianity several years later. Encouraging testimony, enjoyable read.

Geisler on inerrancy

Norman L. Geisler reviews Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. The review is very long, but worth a read if you have interest in the debates around inerrancy. He covers several different issues: textual concerns, choice of authors, (lack of) positions of writers, trajectory of errancy advocacy, historical view of inerrancy, and removing people from societies. While broad, these issues apparently appear in the book in various parts.

He helpfully distinguishes between adaptation and accommodation,

Adaptation view	Accommodation view
God adapts to finitude	God accommodates to error
Bible uses analogous language	It uses equivocal language
Bible stories are factual	Some stories are not factual

He also rightly insists of distinguishing accuracy from precision, something I think is not emphasised enough. Inaccuracy is error, imprecision is not.

The doctrine of inerrancy is sometimes criticized for holding that the Bible always speaks with scientific precision and historical exactness. But since the biblical phenomena do not support this, the doctrine of inerrancy is rejected. However, this is a “straw man” argument. For the CSBI states clearly: “We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision…, including ‘round numbers’ and ‘free citations’” (CSBI. Art. 13). Vanhoozer notes that Warfield and Hodge (in Inspiration, 42) helpfully distinguished “accuracy” (which the Bible has) from “exactness of statement” (which the Bible does not always have) (Vanhoozer, 221).

One of the great ironies of history

In one of the great ironies of history that only God could bring about we see him promise that the Gentiles will be brought into the Kingdom. The faith of Abraham that belonged to Abraham's descendants was to become the faith of the entire world, with all men of faith becoming the seed of Abraham.

Arise, shine, for your light has come,
and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.
For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
and thick darkness the peoples;
but the Lord will arise upon you,
and his glory will be seen upon you.
And nations shall come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your rising. (Isa 60:1-3)

Such was the in-pouring of the nations that their numbers dwarfed Israel. Abraham's descendants would number as stars and sand (Genesis 22:17). And irony of ironies, Israel did not want to be part of the kingdom; the children of the flesh refused to be children of the faith. The people of the promise would not accept the promise, but to those who saw the light of the promise the promise also came; and they came to the promise. The Gentiles join with Israel and outnumber Israel, but not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6). Yet when the time of the Gentiles has ended, will not God include the sons of the flesh? But not as descendants by flesh, rather by faith (Romans 11:23).

Monday quote

A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth: this has been exactly reversed.

G.K. Chesterton

Questions on Arminianism

In response to my post "Repairing fences" Bnonn asks

1. Historically, Calvinism has upheld the free offer of the gospel. So both Calvinism and Arminianism would have God visiting every house, as it were. But this analogy does reveal a different asymmetry between C and A, which is that God doesn't actually visit every house at all. Plenty of people never hear the gospel. That seems problematic under A, since God wants to save everyone, and certainly could have arranged it so everyone at least got a visit. But under C, there is no need for God to visit those whom he has not elected.

2. One very serious philosophical question Arminians need to give account for is why Christians choose faith while others don't. There seems to be a trilemma here. It can't be (i) because God gives Christians more grace than others, because we know God wants to save everyone equally. It can't be (ii) that Christians are just naturally better somehow than other people, because then we could boast in our salvation (it also seems to collapse into the same problem as [i], since God makes us the way we are). And it can't be (iii) that there is some external influence unrelated to either our choosing or God's grace, since that would basically make faith a matter of luck, or something else unrelated to the actual mechanics of salvation.

3. On the theological side, I don't see how Arminians can remain Arminians in light of John 6:44-45: "No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me."

The logic of the passage reveals 3 propositions:

i. No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father
ii. Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus
iii. Everyone who comes to Jesus is raised up on the last day

Now, (i) and (iii) are consistent with Arminianism, since you can just say that the set of people in (iii) is a subset of the universal set in (i). But (ii) makes it clear the sets are actually identical. So Arminianism in conjunction with (ii) entails universalism. If God draws everyone, then Jesus raises up everyone on the last day. The context of the passage precludes universalism, however, because Jesus is clearly talking about people who come to him in this life...which demonstrably not everyone does. So the only way to read this passage is that the Father draws only those who come to Jesus, and no one else. But... that's Calvinism!

Before addressing these questions I need to point out that my goal in the post was not a defence of Arminianism in general but rather a refutation, by use of analogy, of the false claim that Arminians save themselves. Arminians never claim to save themselves, they say that salvation is a gift, and they differ from Calvinists by saying that man is able to refuse the gift of salvation. This position is logical, that is internally coherent. It also seems to Arminians to be Biblical.

As to my takes on various aspects that relate to Calvinism and Arminianism; these can be found under my labels of determinism and freewill.

Addressing Bnonn's questions.

1. If we extend the analogy and say that God does not visit every household the analogy still works; the point is one can still reject the offer of his gate being fixed.

But I did not equate the visit to every house with the preaching of the gospel but with God's desire to save. Thus the Calvinist position that if God desires someone to be saved he will be amongst the elect (some houses); and the Arminian position that God desires all men to be saved (every house), regardless of whether they hear the gospel.

As to my position on salvation, it is about who we follow. Christianity is a centred set, not a bounded set.

2. As I have said elsewhere I don't think there is an answer to why some people choose faith and others do not, beyond our capacity to make choices. We choose because we have a nature that can choose. Yes other things sway us, but we make decisions based on the fact we are agents that can do such things.

Say I have 2 options, one that brings a degree of pleasure, and I desire it, but it does not please God. The other option would please God but I don't desire it. Do I subvert my desire to my will, or do I suppress my conscience for the sake of pleasure?

Our desires compete between long term pleasure and short term pleasure. Sin and righteousness. Yielding to temptation depends on degree of perceived pleasure, previous yielding, our resistance, our requests to God to help us, tiredness, knowledge of consequences, past experiences. All these feed into our decision to obey God, or not. But because men love wickedness, many choose to reject God.

What is it specifically within our spirit that means 2 men with similar inputs choose opposite paths? I see nothing deeper than our will. Our choice to obey righteousness or wickedness. Nothing compels us. Ultimately one person chooses one way and one person the other because they do. Do they decide to love righteousness more than wickedness?  This ability to choose is part of the imago Dei in us. In the same kind of way that God can make free, non-necessary choices, so can we. God can create, or not create. And he could have created a variety of worlds, all of which are good. This freedom that exists within God he imparts to us.

Bnonn's trilemma does not pose significant difficulties. He says the reason Christians have faith and others do not cannot be (from an Arminian perspective)

1. because God gives Christians more grace than others, because we know God wants to save everyone equally;
2. that Christians are just naturally better somehow than other people, because then we could boast in our salvation; or
3. that there is some external influence unrelated to either our choosing or God's grace, since that would basically make faith a matter of luck, or something else unrelated to the actual mechanics of salvation.

Interestingly I deny all 3 can be excluded. God can give more grace to some than others, though this does not cause saving faith. The faithful may be better than others because faith choices are right choices, though Christians are still sinners who require Christ's righteousness to be acceptable before God; that all fall short does not imply they fall short by the same amount. And other external forces may contribute to one's decisions as mentioned above.

Though the crux of the issue is 1. The unstated assumption is that God can increase the amount of grace to a level which will ensure salvation for each person. My position is that the amount of grace given by God is qualitatively different to our choice to follow God or resist him. The nature of love (and the grace by which it comes) is such that no amount of it can prevent the possibility of resistance.

3. I am familiar with the Calvinist approach to John 6. One Arminian response is to deny ii.

Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus

I am not certain that John 6 insists on this. John 6 is saying that one cannot come to Jesus of his own accord, that the Father must draw him. But an Arminian would argue that such drawing is still resistible.

Yet there is another possible understanding of John 6. It is not so much saying that the Father will draw specific people to Jesus a la Calvinism, rather that the Father will draw those who are his people to his son Jesus. In my post on John 6 I wrote,

those who recognise who Jesus is do so because they already know the Father. If they do not recognise Jesus, they do not really know the Father. They may know the story about the manna in the desert, but this story points to Jesus; if they really know the Father who sent manna they will see the true manna.

Comment problems

While I do not get a lot of comments it seems that there is a problem commenting on my posts. I have settings pretty loose with no verification and moderation only on old posts.

The spammers are still getting through. I am informing you in case your comment gets lost. I am not certain how to fix the problem but have removed moderation on old posts. I prefer non-anonymous posts (monikers are fine) as anonymous authors are hard to distinguish form the spammers.

I do note that recent comments pluggin no longer workers, and K9 Web Protection has identified several blogger sites as suspicious.

Monday quote

I've often thought that if I'd been a journalist in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord's ministry, I should have spent my time looking into what was happening in Herod's court. I'd be wanting to sign Salome for her exclusive memoirs, and finding out what Pilate was up to, and - I would have missed completely the most important event there ever was.

Malcolm Muggeridge, journalist (1903–1990).

Repairing fences

Arminians are often accused of saving themselves, as if we are the authors of our own salvation. Despite repeated defences that men can accept God's call and sacrifice, the charge is that Arminianism is salvation by man.

It seems to me that some of the confusion arises because Calvinists see a single transaction in a place that Arminians see two. Because Calvinists claim that God's call is effectual God's choice to save coincides with actual salvation; if not in time, at least in person. God chooses some whom he will save and saves them. Contrary to this Arminians think that man is able to resist God. Thus God both offers salvation and saves men. The acceptance of God's offer is distinct from his salvation. In the Calvinist view God offers salvation to the elect who are all saved. In the Arminian view God offers salvation to all men though only some respond.

Consider a road in disrepair and a builder stops at the houses along the road offering to repair the fences. The Calvinist position is that the builder stops at some houses offering to repair their fence to which the owner accepts the offer. The Arminian position is that the builder is stopping at every house. Some owners accept the offer of a new fence and some decline. Neither those that accept or decline the offer build their own fence, and if they attempt to do so they all fail! Even though Jesus is able to save all men, and no man is able to save himself; and even though Jesus desires to save all men, not all respond to his gracious and life giving offer.