Right Reason

The blog of Dr Glenn Andrew Peoples on Theology, Philosophy, and Social Issues

Doctor Living Stone, I Presume!

By

On January 19, 2010

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Recently I blogged briefly on what the Apostle Paul had to say about the baptism in the Holy Spirit, where he taught that it is something that all members of the church (metaphorically called the ‘body of Christ”) take part in, just by virtue of the fact that they are spiritually counted as members of the church.

My friend Geoff made a comment on that blog that prodded my memory. He said, “I’ve always wondered if what’s in view here is the difference between the old covenant (the temple, and therefore John’s baptism), and the new covenant, which means closer more personal relationship with God through Christ, and therefore the Spirit.” Geoff’s reference to the temple reminded me of another important New Testament passage that talks about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and believers.

Read More

Looking for an article by Peter Van Inwagen

By

On January 17, 2010

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Hi everyone, this is a request made on the asumption that there are philosophy students, graduates or teachers who read this blog. I’m trying to get hold of a copy of an article by Peter Inwagen called “The Possibility of Resurrection.” It was published in the International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion back in 1978. I used to have access to that Journal online when I was a student, but alas, no longer. The page where I would have accessed it via SpringerLink is here.

The essay has since been published in a book of the same name, but alas, that is out of print.

Does anyone have a copy of this article?

The Old Testament: Older than some thought

By

On January 15, 2010

In theology and biblical studies

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

If you’re familiar with biblical criticism (i.e. the study of manuscript traditions and copies, textual variations, questions of dating and authorship of various books), you’ll be aware of two distinct tendencies. Whether it’s helpful (or accurate) or not, these two tendencies are often deemed “liberal” and “conservative.” Conservative biblical criticism generally regards the books of the Bible to have an earlier date of writing, closer to the time of the events that they depict. Conservative criticism is more likely to attribute the actual authorship of books to the author named in them, and is resistant to suggestions that any book containing a prophetic prediction was written after the fact predicted so that the original prediction can be doctored to fit the fulfilment. As liberal biblical criticism is sometimes associated with scholars who have an interest in denying the possibility of miracles (including prophetic prediction), any appearance of a successful prediction (for example when Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem within the lifetime of his audience) is explained by a very late authorship of the book in question where the prediction was inserted after the alleged fulfillment had already occurred.

The Old Testament history of Israel is frequently a target of liberal criticism. Large-scale migration from Egypt, the events of the conquest, even the very existence of key historical figures is called into question, and it is often said that the books themselves were written numerous centuries after the time that conservative scholarship would have us think. In other words, the Old Testament history of Israel is regarded by some liberal biblical critics as a re-written history that was not composed until many centuries after the supposed fact. Positing a significant gap in time – the larger the better – between the events and the recording of them lends plausibility to the suspicion that there is little (if any) relationship between the actual history and the composed record of it.

Recently more extreme liberal biblical criticism took a hit, with the discovery and more recently the deciphering of the most ancient Hebrew inscription on earth.

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: “It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.”

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

…

He adds that once this deciphering is received, the inscription will become the earliest Hebrew inscription to be found, testifying to Hebrew writing abilities as early as the 10th century BCE. This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognized the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.

Prof. Galil also notes that the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea. He explains that if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. “It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.” He adds that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

Read more about this here, and read the University’s press release here.

Hat tip to Christian News New Zealand for bringing the link to my attention and to Johnny King for bringing the CNNZ article to my attention (he did so on Facebook).

Glenn Peoples

The Woman Taken in Adultery

By

On January 15, 2010

In moral theology, New Testament

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The so-called pericope adulterae of John 7:53-8:11 has frequently been used to suggest that Jesus did not approve either of the application of the Mosaic Law or of the death penalty (or both). Christopher Marshall for example claims that “there is only one passage in the New Testament that refers directly to the legitimacy of the death penalty (John 7:53-8:11).”1 Marshall concludes that what we have in this crucial passage is an example of “restorative justice overthrowing retributive justice in the Christian age.”2 Thus, here Jesus overthrows the justice of the Old Testament in favour of a more gracious approach to social ethics. Arguing from a clearly different theological/ethical framework, Kaiser too appeals to this passage, viewing it as important evidence that “the morality of the law abides while the sanctions may change.”3

Read More

Loftus on eternal torture

By

On January 15, 2010

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Recently I blogged on what traditional Christian theology says about hell. I cited the examples of Tertullian, Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and Isaac Watts, all of whom taught in one way or another (Tertullian being the most graphic) that when the saints get to heaven they will derive great happiness and enjoyment from watching the torture of the damned. My point there was that those who claim to hold the traditional Christian view of hell don’t realise that this was part of that theology, and would be less likely to state that they affirm the traditional view if they were aware of this aspect of it.

John Loftus liked what he saw, but for quite different reasons:

Read More

The Apostle Paul and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

By

On January 15, 2010

In theology and biblical studies

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Time to wax theological just a little. More or less all Christians in the Western world – and plenty of people who aren’t Christians as well, are familiar with Pentecostalism. It’s a brand of Christianity born at the beginning of the twentieth century with a strong emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and also the gifts of the Holy Spirit, with a special emphasis on what they refer to as the “gift of tongues.” I might say more about that another time, but for now I just want to comment briefly on the Pentecostal emphasis on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the way that it relates (or does not relate) to the New Testament.

Read More

A plea for a little more ecumenicalism

By

On January 13, 2010

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Two men met at a Christian conference. Man A eyed man B suspiciously before striking up a conversation. The following back and forth ensued:

Man A: What’s that Bible you have there?

Man B: Hello to you too. It’s an ESV.

Man A: Oh, well that’s pretty good I guess…. Luther or Calvin?

Man B: I’m sorry?

Man A: Luther or Calvin?

Man B: Ah, well, Calvin I supp-

Man A: Yes! Yes, good, Calvin!

Man B: Ah, OK, good. Look, my name’s Greg. It’s nice to meet you.

Man A: Greg you say. Well Greg, Trinitarian and all that?

Man B: Yes, of course.

Man A: Of course, of course. Now, think fast: Pre, Post, or A?

Man B: I’m sorry, what?

Man A: The millennium! Pre, Post or A?

Man B: Um, well, I don’t- I mean I’m not really decided. Maybe Amillennial, but Postmillennialism could be right, I’ve never really thought hard about tha-

Man A: Ah, well, at least you’re not the other one. Westminster confession?

Man B: Yes, it’s pretty good. Not infallible, mind you, but it’s good.

Man A: Mmmm, sounding a bit liberal there… we’ll work on it. Sola Scriptura?

Man B: Yes, actually. Yes, as long as it’s properly understood.

Man A: Properly understood? That better not be a cop out!

Man B: No, not at all. I just mean that I accept that idea as it was historically understood by the Reformers.

Man A: … alright then. Justification by faith?

Man B: Yes.

Man A: Abortion is wrong right?

Man B: Yes, definitely. It’s like killing anyone else.

Man A: Yes, Amen! Good, good. Same sex marriage. Yes or no?

Man B: No.

Man A: Well said.

Man B: Why are you doin-

Man A: Oh nothing. Nothing, don’t worry. Sounds like you’ll be alright.

Man B: I’m relieved!

Man A: Yes, yes, don’t worry, you’re not like those liberal punks. They’ll be sorry when they end up roasting in hell forever.

Man B: Well you know I’m not really sure that the Bible teaches that that’s what will happ-

Man A: Liberal! Postmodern! You’ve given up a biblical worldview! Heck, you’ve just thrown evangelical Christianity away! You’re so emotional!

Glenn Peoples

Front Row Seats in Hell

By

On January 11, 2010

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The greatest show in eternity is going to be one hell of an act, theologians have told us throughout history. Tertullian was the first to say so:

What there excites my admiration? what my derision? Which sight gives me joy? which rouses me to exultation?—as I see so many illustrious monarchs, whose reception into the heavens was publicly announced, groaning now in the lowest darkness with great Jove himself, and those, too, who bore witness of their exultation; governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the Christian name, in fires more fierce than those with which in the days of their pride they raged against the followers of Christ. What world’s wise men besides, the very philosophers, in fact, who taught their followers that God had no concern in aught that is sublunary, and were wont to assure them that either they had no souls, or that they would never return to the bodies which at death they had left, now covered with shame before the poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them! Poets also, trembling not before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the unexpected Christ! I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more “dissolute” in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows; unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin, in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury vented itself against the Lord. “This,” I shall say, “this is that carpenter’s or hireling’s son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!” What quæstor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in such things as these? And yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.

Read through it a few times. Soak it in. According to Tertullian, his admiration, his derision, his joy at the sight, and his exultation, will be roused by the visible sight of those who did not believe in Jesus, groaning, living in flames, tossing in flaming billows. He looked forward to hearing those who took part in plays, although with much louder voices as they scream because of their torture in hell. He longed to fix his gaze on those who were actors as they suffer in agony before his eyes. Surely, he marvels, no human priest or quæstor (a Roman official governing financial affairs) can provide you with any favour as great as watching and enjoying all this! But God will. It’s a pity that we can’t see it now, but, Tertullian encourages us, as we look around even now at those who are still alive and reject Christ, we can imagine all this happening to them. By faith, thank God, we can picture it right now.

Read More

Let’s take over the world

By

On January 9, 2010

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

It’s an unfortunate fact that New Zealand lacks a strong cultural niche that recognises and promotes theologically conservative Christian scholarship of excellence in the humanities, specifically philosophy and theology, apologetics and biblical studies that interacts with some of the radical scholarship of recent decades? The choice here seems to be between denominational/theological partisanship that paints itself into the corner of irrelevance on one hand and liberalism where scandal and smugness is more important than truth on the other.

Are there people out there in this small pond who aren’t like that? Yes. But is there anything out there to encourage them? Is there anything to aim for? Are there parachurch organisations with this sort of scholarly orientation to aspire to be involved with, as there are in other countries? Not at all, as far as I can tell. Do we have colleges of higher learning with this sort of emphasis? Well we have Christian colleges of higher learning, but none who seem to taking any steps in this direction (one of them has made some muted murmurs about future possibilities, but that is as far as it goes). Are there networks through which Christian scholars can connect to others in their position? Not really, no. Do secular universities look kindly on those qualified people with primary interests in these areas? Well, there aren’t many Universities in New Zealand anyway, but the answer is still no. Were I a vocal sceptic I would have better chances – sad but true. Does your own church have enthusiasm for the unique contribution someone in this position can offer in its teaching programmes? Not in my experience.

Read More

Did Jesus preach hell more than heaven?

By

On January 5, 2010

In heaven and hell, New Testament, theology and biblical studies

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

If you have any serious interest in the subject of hell, you will probably have either read or heard someone tell you that Jesus taught more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. In fact, you may also have read/heard people telling you that Jesus preached on the fearful idea of hell as a place of endless suffering far more than he talked about heaven. But if anyone says that this is true, then their problem isn’t theology. It’s maths.

Read More

Page 48 of 78

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén