November 22, 2010

Acts: The Continuation of Jesus’ Ministry

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
1 Comment 

I was listening to a lecture on Acts recently and something pretty basic about Luke’s intent clicked for me in a way it hadn’t before.  Luke began his second work with these words:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, [2] until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. [3] He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. [4] And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; [5] for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” [6] So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” [7] He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. [8] But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:1-8 ESV)

By saying he had previously written of the things Jesus “began” to do and teach, Luke implies that what he is about to write in the second book will be the things Jesus continued to do and teach.  How could this be, however, seeing that Jesus had already ascended into heaven at the end of Luke’s gospel?  Luke tells us.  Jesus taught the apostles via the Holy Spirit while He was still on Earth (v. 2).  He also worked miracles through the Spirit.  Now, that same Holy Spirit would be given to the apostles so they could be empowered to spread the news, mission, and kingdom of Christ on the Earth (vs. 4-8).  Luke’s point is that Jesus’ teachings and ministry continues through the church.

This ties into Luke’s comments about the kingdom of God.  Some may have thought the messianic age was delayed since Jesus had ascended to heaven.  After all, the Jews were expecting an earthly kingdom.   Luke’s answer is that the messianic age did not end with the ascension of Christ.  Jesus is king, and Jesus is reigning even though He is not here in the flesh.  How so?  Through His church.  With the Spirit in us Jesus is present on the Earth, and reigns through us.

 

November 18, 2010

Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage, and Fundamental Rights

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage
[4] Comments 

Same-sex marriage advocates—including the courts—often argue that marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore same-sex couples must be granted access to the institution even if that requires changing the definition of marriage itself.[1]

There are three problems with this argument.  First, it proves too much.  If marriage is a fundamental right, such that the qualifications for and definition of the institution must be revised to accommodate those who want access to the institution but do not qualify based on the traditional definition, then the institution will have to be revised to accommodate more than just same-sex couples.  It will need to be revised every time any one wishes to participate in the institution, but does not qualify based on the legal definition in use at the time.  Indeed, if the right to marriage is so fundamental that it requires society to change its definition of marriage to match the desires of hopeful participants, then society is left without a principled basis for declining anyone’s request to have their own idea of marriage recognized by the State.  The State must change the definition of marriage to match every new request, whether we approve of their concept of marriage or not.

(more…)

 

November 16, 2010

Reifying “Natures” = Two Persons

Posted by Jason Dulle under Christology, Theology, Theology Proper
[73] Comments 

Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) have always struggled to explain the duality of activity and consciousness we see portrayed in Scripture between the Father and Son.  The Father is doing one thing, while the Son is doing another; the Father knows all things, while the Son knows only what the Father reveals to Him; the Father is prayed to, while the Son prays.  How can this distinction of activity and consciousness be explained other than in terms of multiple persons?  Admittedly, that would be the most obvious and natural explanation.  And yet, because we are persuaded that the Biblical affirmation of monotheism extends both to God’s essence and God’s person, OPs have sought an alternative explanation that is Biblically and philosophically sound.

The standard way of explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures.  The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y.  On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature.  What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.”  What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.”  Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities.  On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another.  The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.

(more…)

 

November 14, 2010

Parallel between the Original Commission and the Great Commission

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[2] Comments 

I was listening to a Reasons to Believe podcast the other day.  Fazale Rana raised an interesting observation I had never heard or considered before.  He noted a parallel between God’s original commission, and Jesus’ Great Commission:

“So God created man in his own image….  And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” (Genesis 1:27a, 28)

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)

In the beginning of creation, God commissioned humanity to multiply themselves in number (through sex), and fill the earth.  Similarly, in the beginning of the new age of the Spirit, Jesus commissions the disciples to multiply themselves in number (through evangelism and discipleship) throughout the earth.  Whereas the first commission was aimed at proliferating human life globally, the new commission was aimed at proliferating eternal life globally.  The sons of Adam had filled the earth, but a new commission was needed to fill the earth with the sons of God.

 

November 11, 2010

Oldest Greek copy of Acts 2:38

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible
[4] Comments 

I thought you might be interested in seeing the oldest Greek manuscript containing Acts 2:38.  It is found in Codex Sinaiticus, a mid-4th century manuscript.  Here is the page of the codex it is found in (2nd column, middle):

(more…)

 

November 3, 2010

Iowa Supreme Court justices Ousted

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[2] Comments 

Apparently Iowans didn’t like the idea of their Supreme Court forcing same-sex marriage on the state.  In last night’s elections, the voters ousted all three Supreme Court justices who were up for re-election—justices, who in 2009, declared same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right.  This is the first time any sitting Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained on the bench when put up for re-election.  The voters have sent a clear message to the supreme judiciary in their state: interpret the constitution, don’t reinvent it in your own image.  Of course, on a practical level this move will do nothing in the immediate future to change the status of same-sex marriage in Iowa.

 

October 29, 2010

Myth: Rope on High Priest’s Ankle

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[2] Comments 

I’m sure many of you have heard a preacher talk about how the high priest would tie a rope around his ankle before entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement so that if God struck him dead, his body could be removed without anyone else having to enter the forbidden chamber.  Apparently this is a myth.  There’s no historical evidence for this.  The first mention of the practice is in a 13th century A.D. text called the Zohar, and it claims it was a gold chain, not a rope.  An article by Ari Zivotofsky goes into more detail, providing evidence against such a claim.

 

October 28, 2010

Has 1 in 10 teens had a same-sex partner?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Statistics
[9] Comments 

That’s what AOL News claims based on an article in the journal Pediatrics.  Kevin DeYoung smelled something fishy about this surprising statistic, so did a little investigating and found out that the claim is based on a misreading of the journal article.  DeYoung writes:

AOL speaks of 1 in 10 teens; the original article concludes 9.3% of sexually active adolescents reported a same-sex partner. There’s a big difference. The survey analyzed data from 17,220 teenagers. Of those, 7,261 (or 42%) reported having had sex. So according this study 58% of teens are not having sex with anyone and 9.3% of those have, had same-sex partners, or 3.9% of the total sample.

(more…)

 

October 28, 2010

Causes vs. Explanations

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Philosophy, Theistic Arguments
[14] Comments 

On the way to work this morning I was thinking about the question, “Who made God?”  Many people wonder about this question (answer here), but it is a favorite atheist objection to the cosmological argument which posits God as the best explanation for the origin of physical reality (the universe/multiverse).  They use this objection in one of two ways.  Either they argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then so does God,” or they argue, “If God doesn’t need a cause, then neither does the universe.”  Both formulations are faulty, but my intent is not to evaluate the objection here.  I bring it up only to highlight that there is a difference between an explanation and a cause.  While everything that exists needs an explanation, not everything needs (or has) a cause.

(more…)

 

October 27, 2010

What to Do When You Can’t Amen the Preacher

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends
[42] Comments 

Have any of you ever been in the situation where your pastor called on you during his preaching to confirm something he said, but you didn’t agree with his statement? 

Given my theological education, every so often I’ve had pastors of mine call on me to affirm something they’ve said.  They’ll say something like “Would you agree with that Brother Dulle?” or “Is that right, Brother Dulle?”  Luckily, I haven’t been in the place where I could not affirm the statement in some sense, but I’m sure it will happen one day and I don’t know what to say.  Saying, “Actually, no” would cause a scene, and make both of us look bad.  And yet, I wouldn’t want to appear to agree with something I don’t agree with either.   

I’ve contemplated using the line Jesus used with Pilate, “You say so,” but I don’t think that’s going to cut it.  Perhaps the best one I’ve come up with is “Perhaps.”  That signals that I’m not necessarily on board with the statement, but I’m not declaring it wrong either.  Does anyone have a good one-line response that could allow me to wiggle out of the situation tactfully, honestly, and graciously?

 

October 27, 2010

More than Religion is Responsible for Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage, Statistics
[2] Comments 

Many proponents of same-sex marriage assume that opposition to same-sex marriage comes almost exclusively from religious citizens.  A simple math calculation exposes the error of this assumption: religious believers account for approximately 95% of the population, and yet only 48% oppose same-sex marriage (41% favor).  Clearly not all opposition to same-sex marriage is coming from religious believers.  Who, then, is it coming from?

(more…)

 

October 26, 2010

Amazing Pics of 10 Week Fetus In Situ

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[99] Comments 

Speaking of the debate on abortion, check out the pictures of a 10 week fetus below, still in its amniotic sac.  The mother was diagnosed with carcinoma of the cervix, so her entire uterus had to be removed, including the baby that was developing in it.  Simply amazing.  And to think that these babies are aborted on a regular basis in the name of choice.  Sickening.  

 

October 26, 2010

Scott Klusendorf on Abortion

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
Leave a Comment 

Check out Scott Klusendorf’s summary of his debate with PA State Senator Daylin Leach on the issue of abortion.  The substance of his rebuttals to pro-choice assertions, as well as his tactics in delivering that substance, is unparalleled.  This is why Scott is the best pro-life debater bar-none!

 

October 25, 2010

It Behooves Naturalists to Jettison Methodological Naturalism in Science

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science
[11] Comments 

In the latest edition of Philosophia Christi, the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s journal, philosopher Stephen C. Dilley wrote a really nice article titled “Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism: Strange Bedfellows?” in which he argued that philosophical naturalists should dispense with the principle of methodological naturalism in science.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with these terms, philosophical naturalism (PN) is the view that only physical things exist, while methodological naturalism (MN) is the view that we must restrict our method of scientific inquiry to naturalistic processes.  MN does not require one to presuppose the truth of PN, but it does require that one investigate the natural world as if God does not exist, or if He does, as if He has no causal relationship to the natural world.  According to MN, for an explanation to be considered “scientific” it must be naturalistic; i.e. it must appeal to naturalistic entities and processes.

(more…)

 

October 22, 2010

What I’ve Been Reading: The Making of an Atheist, Part II

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Book Reviews
[3] Comments 

For part 1 of this two-part series, go here.

From a psychological perspective, Spiegel argues that broken/absent father relationships can be a contributing factor in a persons’ rejection of God’s existence.  He bases this, in part, from Sigmund Freud’s own psychological analysis that belief in God is a projection of one’s desire for a cosmic version of their earthly father, and, in part, from the research of ex-atheist Paul C. Vitz published in Faith of the Fatherless.  Spiegel argues that just as a good relationship with one’s father may contribute to belief in a Cosmic Father, likewise, the lack of a relationship, or a bad relationship with one’s father may contribute to one’s disbelief in a Cosmic Father.  Spiegel cites David Hume, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus as examples of atheists who experienced the death of their father at a young age.  He also cites Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Ludwig Feuerback, Samuel Butler, Sigmund Freud, H. G. Wells, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and Albert Ellis as examples of atheist who had a weak or abusive father (abandonment, neglect, bitter relationship).  Contrast these individuals to well-known theists who had good relationships with their father: Blaise Pascal, George Berkeley, Joseph Butler, Thomas Reid, Edmund Burke, William Paley, William Wilberforce, Friedrich Schleiermacher, John Henry Newman, Alexis de Tocqueville, Soren Kierkegaard, G. K. Chesterton, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Buber, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Abraham Heschel.

(more…)

 

October 21, 2010

Say Anything Negative About Muslims, Get Fired

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Political Incorrectness
[27] Comments 

National Public Radio has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams because he said the following on Bill O’Reilly’s show: “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

I can’t believe he would get fired over this comment.  He was simply expressing what virtually every American thinks and feels in such a circumstance.  We know not every Muslim or Arab is an extremist or terrorist, but we can’t forget that it was Muslims, not Buddhists or Hindus, that attacked us on 9/11 and want to carry out more attacks.

It’s a sad day in American when you can’t express what should be obvious to all without losing your job.  I can guarantee you that if he had said something similar about Christians his contract would not have been in danger.  Political correctness has caused us to lose our minds.

 

October 21, 2010

What I’ve Been Reading: The Making of an Atheist, Part I

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Book Reviews
[7] Comments 

If you ask the typical atheist why s/he does not believe in God, you are likely to be provided with a list of intellectual objections to theism: the presence of evil is incompatible with a loving and powerful God, science demonstrates the irrelevancy of God, etc.  Others will cite a lack of evidence for God’s existence.  In either case, atheism is presented as, and perceived to be a purely intellectual conclusion.

James Spiegel begs to differ with this assessment and perception of atheism.  In his book, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief, Spiegel argues that the root cause of atheism is immorality, not intellectual skepticism; disobedience, not evidence.  While atheists offer intellectual arguments in support of their position, Spiegel claims that such arguments are not the cause of their unbelief, but mere symptoms of their moral rebellion—the real cause of atheism.  As Soren Kierkegaard wrote, “People try to persuade us that the objections against Christianity spring from doubt.  The objections against Christianity spring from insubordination, the dislike of obedience, rebellion against all authority.  As a result people have hitherto been beating the air in the struggle against objections, because they have fought intellectually with doubt instead of fighting morally with rebellion.”[1]

Spiegel does not expect for atheists to agree with his assessment, but he is not attempting to persuade atheists; he is simply attempting develop a Christian account of atheism.  The Biblical data is his starting point, but he offers other supporting data as well.  In support of Spiegel’s contention that unbelief is caused by disobedience and moral rebellion, consider the following Scriptures:

(more…)

 

October 18, 2010

20 Year Old Baby is Born

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics
[2] Comments 

Sound like a spoof?  It isn’t.  An embryo was conceived via in vitro fertilization in 1990, and then frozen at the zygote stage (single cell).  After nearly 20 years, the embryo was donated to a woman who was infertile.  The embryo was implanted, resulting in a live birth to a 6 lb 15 oz baby boy in May 2010. 

How does one “date” a child like this?  Technically he is already 20 years old before he ever celebrates his first birthday.  Interesting.

 

October 15, 2010

In the beginning: John vs. Moses

Posted by Jason Dulle under Christology, Hermeneutics, Theology
[31] Comments 

The Bible begins with one of the most famous proclamations of all time: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  Theologians have historically understood “in the beginning” to refer to the very beginning of time itself.  It was the boundary between timeless eternity and temporality. 

Fast forward to the first century A.D.  John opens his gospel about Jesus Christ with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”  The resemblance to Genesis is unmistakable.  Both Moses and John begin their work with “in the beginning,” and both speak of the creative word of God. 

The question arises as to whether John is using “in the beginning” in the same way as Moses.  For Moses it referred to the beginning of time and creation, but that’s how John is using it, then to say the Word was “in the beginning” seems to imply that the Word was not eternal, but a created entity who began to exist concomitantly with the created realm.  Clearly this cannot be the correct interpretation because John 1:1 identifies the Word as being God (whom we know is eternal, and thus existed “prior to” the universe), and John 1:3 identifies the Word as the uncreated creator.  Why, then, would John say the Word was “in the beginning?”  Why not say Jesus was “before the beginning” or “before the ages?”  What is your take on the matter?

 

October 12, 2010

The Hiddenness of God Objection to Theism, Part II

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheistic objections, Epistemology, Theistic Arguments
[16] Comments 

For the previous installment, click here.

So far I have provided what I consider to be reasonable responses to the HoG objection.  Now I want to discuss a couple of popular responses I find inadequate for the task.  The first is to assert that God has provided enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe in and submit to a relationship with God, but not so much so as to compel the unwilling.  The idea here is that if God were to provide more evidence of His existence, people would be compelled to believe in Him, and thus be robbed of their free will.  But what exactly would they be compelled to do?  At best, they would be compelled to believe that God exists (a rational obligation); however, such knowledge does not coerce one into a relationship with God.  Rational obligations tell us what we ought to believe given the evidence; they do not coerce us into believing or doing anything in particular.  Our beliefs and actions continue to be free.

(more…)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »