January 11, 2008

How to Tell the Difference Between Fake and Authentic Tongues

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology, Tongues
[387] Comments 

Have you ever had doubts about your own experience of speaking in tongues? Have you ever wondered if it was truly God, or just you making up sounds? What about others? Have you ever heard someone speaking in tongues, but doubted that it was the real deal? How do we tell the difference between fake and authentic tongues?


There are two ways we can test the validity of tongues. Both can be used to test the validity of our own personal tongues, while only one can be used to test the validity of others’ tongues.


Scripture teaches us that tongues are genuine languages. They are not meaningless sounds, or ecstatic gibberish. Languages employ a variety of sounds to compose a variety of words. If, when you speak in tongues, you find that you are repeating the same few sounds over and over and over again, it may indicate that you are not truly speaking in tongues. This same criterion can also be used to help us judge whether others’ use of tongues is legitimate or contrived.


Secondly, and more importantly, we learn from Scripture that it is the Spirit who enables us to speak in a new, and unlearned language (Acts 2:4). The words we speak have their origin with God, not man. We do not invent the language, and thus we do not invent the “sounds” that we speak.


In 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 Paul contrasted speaking in tongues with praying in his native tongue, saying the former prayer was with his spirit whereas the latter prayer was with his mind. He made the point that when his spirit prays, his mind is unproductive. This means our minds are not involved in the speaking process. Speaking in tongues is not something we have to think about. Contrast this to our native language. First we think about what we are going to say, and then we say it—in that order. The language of the Spirit, however, is not connected to the mind, but rather ensues from the spirit of man. That means we don’t think about what we are going to say in tongues and then say it, but rather we speak the words in tongues, and then upon hearing what we have spoken we think about the words or sounds we just heard. It is just the opposite of learned speech.


There have been many occasions in prayer in which I found myself thinking about things such as what I was going to do when I was finished praying, all the while speaking in tongues. Shame on me for not having my mind on prayer, but the fact that I could think on one thing while speaking another proves that the mind is not the source of tongues. If you find yourself having to think about what sounds you will speak next, that is a good indication you are not truly speaking in tongues. I hope such is not the case, but it is better to recognize this and seek the true experience than it is to persist in a false belief and experience, mistaking it for the true.

 

December 20, 2007

I Don’t Expect to Change Your Mind?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Thinking
[8] Comments 
It’s common to hear people say “I do not expect to change your mind” in the course of debate these days. Just recently I was debating someone on an exegetical issue involving 1Thessalonians 4:14 who said these very words to me after only one round of correspondence.

While there are instances in which this assessment is justified–such as when your opponent declares, “Nothing you say is going to change my mind,” or when, after a sufficient amount of dialogue it becomes clear that your opponent suffers from intellectual stubbornness–it is often used prematurely and inappropriately. I would advise dispensing with such talk for two reasons.

First, I think it communicates a defeatist message, and that prematurely. It may be that neither individual will change his position as a result of the debate (although they often cede various points), but one should let the debate run its course before concluding that their arguments failed to persuade their opponent.

Secondly, and more importantly, the comment is demeaning to either oneself, or one’s opponent. It can be self-demeaning in that it cedes the lack of cogency in one’s argument a priori. How can we be so sure our arguments will not persuade our opponent? If we do not think they are persuasive, why even offer them?

More often, however, such a comment is meant to demean your opponent. It communicates the idea that you don’t think he possesses enough intellectual honesty to change his position in light of the evidence you are presenting. That is very demeaning.

Whether we mean to demean the quality of our arguments, or the intellectual honesty of our opponents, such a statement is demeaning and should be used wisely and infrequently.

And for the record, I do expect my arguments for a limited use of this comment to change your mind! And so should I. If our arguments are good ones, none of us should expect any less.
 

December 20, 2007

Rationality and Faith

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Theology, Thinking
Leave a Comment 

What relationship does rationality have to faith? While some only convert after they have examined the evidence for Christianity, most people convert based on a personal experience with Jesus Christ. That’s the way it was for me. I came to believe Christianity was true, not by a rational examination of the evidence, but because of my personal encounter with the risen Christ. I remain a Christian, however, not only because of my past and present experience, but because I have examined the rational evidence for Christianity and found it superior to all other worldviews.


Whether one first believes because of what they know by experience, or what they know by rationality, the fact remains that a robust faith requires both. He who first believes based on an experience needs to supplement that experience with a rational inquiry of the faith they now hold. He who first believes based on a rational examination of Christianity needs to supplement his persuasion with a personal encounter of Jesus Christ.


For further reading about the relationship of faith and rationality, see my articles on the topic at IBS:


Faith Has Its Reasons

What is the Relationship of Reason to Revelation?
A Balanced Perspective on Reason and Faith

Investigating Faith: Placing Religious Truth Back Into the Arena of Knowledge

Religious Truth Can Be Known
Scaling the Gulf Between Scientific and Religious Knowledge

 

December 20, 2007

Are the Gifts of the Spirit Only Available for Those Who First Receive the Spirit?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Spiritual gifts, Theology
[14] Comments 

I was always taught that the gifts of the Spirit were only for those who have first received the Spirit. The Scriptural justification given was usually an appeal to 1Corinthians 12:13, where in the context of discussing spiritual gifts Paul said, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.” Paul went on to compare the church to a human body, arguing that each person has a function in the body of Christ based on His spiritual gifting. It is argued, then, that if one has not received the Spirit, He is not in the body of Christ, and thus does not have a spiritual gift. I think this interpretation is mistaken both exegetically and logically.


Exegetically, Paul does not make the point those who advance this idea claim he is making. He does not argue that one must be in the body of Christ in order to have a spiritual gift. He simply notes that of those who are in the body of Christ because they have received the Spirit have a spiritual gift as well. The only thing we can gather from the text is that having the Spirit is a sufficient condition for having a spiritual gift; we cannot conclude that it is a necessary condition. While all those in the body of Christ have a spiritual gift, that does not preclude anyone who is outside the body of Christ from having a spiritual gift. Having the Spirit may be the norm for those who have a spiritual gift in NT times, but it does not mean there can be no exceptions.


Logically, it is clear that the gifts of the Spirit are not predicated on one’s possession of the Spirit. The OT saints operated in the gifts of the Spirit even though they were not filled with the Spirit. One may counter that the spiritual gifts Paul spoke of are different than what we see operative in the OT, but why should we believe that? How does an OT miracle differ from a NT miracle? How did one’s ability to discern different spirits differ in the OT from the NT? Only two of the nine spiritual gifts are unique to the NT period (different kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues). The rest were exhibited in days of old, and thus there is no reason to think that one must have the Spirit to have the gifts of the Spirit. Again, that may be the norm during the current dispensation, but there is no good reason to believe it is a hard and fast rule.

 

December 7, 2007

Michael J. Fox’s “Embryonic Ties”

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Stem Cell Research
1 Comment 

Sorry, but I have one more post before leaving on vacation!


Michael J. Fox, in an interview with Maria Menounos on The Today Show, said he will continue to be an advocate for embryonic stem cell research, even though an alternative method for obtaining the functional equivalent of hES cells has been found. I don’t get it. To my knowledge Fox doesn’t have a financial stake in ESCR. His career is not on the line. He is not aspiring for political office. He is an advocate for ESCR because he wants to find a cure for the Parkinson’s he and many others suffer from, and thinks ESCR is the most promising ticket to get there. Of all the public advocates out there, he is surely most interested in the clinical success of ESCR.

That’s why I am baffled that he would not switch ships at the dock. Why continue to support ESCR when an simpler, more efficient method of obtaining the same kinds of cells has come along? The number of hESCs we can obtain will always be limited to the number of frozen IVF embryos donated to research, or the number of eggs donated for cloning (if human cloning ever proves successful). But with iPS cells, we can create a virtually unlimited supply. All we need is a skin cell! Furthermore, labs all over the world can create iPS cells, whereas only a relatively few were equipped to do ESCR and cloning.

Furthermore, surely Fox must be aware of the fact that moral concerns are largely responsible for the slow pace of ESCR. Why not support the research that everyone agrees is morally acceptable? It can only speed up the progress, because it will enjoy the support of everyone, including the federal government. I can’t figure Fox out.

HT: Jivin J

 

December 4, 2007

Is the Singular “Name” of Matthew 28:19 Theologically Important?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Baptism, Soteriology, Theology
[100] Comments 

I’ve been giving some additional thought to the traditional OP interpretation of Matthew 28:19, particularly our emphasis on the importance of the singular nature of “name.” We argue that if Jesus meant for us to actually invoke three names over the baptizee (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), He should have used the plural form, “names.” Instead, He used the singular form, “name,” which is grammatically incorrect. Why did He do so? Because He only had one name in view. The disciples properly discerned that name to be His name-Jesus-and used His name exclusively in their baptismal formula. They obeyed, rather than repeated Jesus’ words.

I’m not so sure our emphasis on the singular form of “name” is justified. The use of the singular “name” is grammatically justifiable. “Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a string of three genitival phrases modifying “name.” It could be argued that the prepositional phrase, “in the name,” is implied for both the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the intended sense of the verse is, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Spirit.” It would be similar to my saying, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and the queen, and the motherland.” Here, the singular use of “name” is justified because “in the name of” is implied for both the queen and the motherland. The sentence should really read, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and [the name of] the queen, and [the name of] the motherland.” If the same is true of Matthew 28:19, then the singular “name” is being applied to each of the three appellations individually, and hence the singular use of name is grammatically justified.

If I am right, then making an ado over the singular use of “name” as an obvious signal that Jesus meant for the disciples to pick up on some deeper meaning is misguided, and irrelevant to understanding how Matthew 28:19 squares with the baptismal formula used by the apostles in Acts.

If I am right, how should we understand what Jesus said against what the apostles did? Why did they baptize in Jesus’ name? What clued them in to the fact that Jesus did not mean for them to literally repeat His words? If it wasn’t His singular use of “name,” maybe it was what Jesus said before speaking those controversial words. He prefaced His command to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the F/S/HS by saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore…” (28:18). After He issued His command He continued to speak exclusively of Himself: “Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always” (28:20). The emphasis was on Christ alone. Together with the disciples recognition that Jesus encapsulates our experience of God, they understood His words to mean that they were to baptize in His name. The authority (name) in which we are baptized is the same as the one who just claimed all authority in heaven and earth: Jesus Christ. It is for that reason that we are baptized in His name.

Whether it was due to the singular use of “name,” or the context of Jesus’ command, the fact remains that the apostles understood Jesus to mean they were to baptize in His name, and we should follow their lead.

Any thoughts? Any grammatical or theological insights?

UPDATE: Someone emailed me a link to an article by a Oneness Pentecostal making the same points I made here, but in expanded form. The author, Mark Kennicott, also exegetes some of the key passages cited in support of the conclusion that Jesus is the singular name of the Father and Spirit. Check it out.

 

December 4, 2007

Taking Science on Faith

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Science
Leave a Comment 

Paul Davies recently wrote a piece in The New York Times titled “Taking Science by Faith. Davies is a astrophysicist, origin of life researchers, and philosopher. He is also a pantheist, which is a “religious” version of atheism. That may sound strange, but both share the same ontology (God does not exist). The latter differs from atheism in that it views the universe as an object of religious devotion. For Davies, the laws that govern the universe are the object of religious devotion.


Davies’ metaphysical commitments make his article all the more interesting. He argues that both science and religion have faith commitments. While many philosophers have pointed this out, it is rare for a practicing scientist to admit it. Maybe his background in philosophy is forcing his honesty! I quite Davies at length:


Science, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. … The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. … The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

His point is that before a scientist can even begin the work of science, he must presuppose certain things to be true about the natural world. Those presuppositions are not obtained through the scientific method, but rather give rise to the method itself. Without those presuppositions, science cannot get off the ground.


He speaks of the laws of physics. Where do they come from, and why are they what they are? Why should there be any laws at all? Why doesn’t the physical world behave differently in different places and at different times? Science does not know the answer to these questions. And yet they must rely on the physical laws to inquire of physical reality. He continues:


When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.


“They just are.” That’s the explanation some atheists give for the existence of the entire cosmos. Why is there something rather than nothing? There is no reason, they say. It just exists as a brute contingent fact, completely inexplicable. As Davies says, this is deeply anti-rational. And yet science, operating on the principle that agent-causation is not a valid explanation for physical phenomena, cannot explain why the universe exists, or why there are physical laws. They are left merely with the observation that they exist, inexplicably. Why? Because the cause of the physical laws, like the cause of the universe, cannot be physical. If science cannot allow a non-physical, agent cause to explain physical phenomenon, science must be content with anti-rational answers like the ones Davies laments. Davies notes the fact that the explanation must lie outside the physical universe:


Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.

…

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.


I find it interesting that Davies thinks more research can unveil a materialistic cause for the natural laws. Unless he wishes to advance the notion that the laws of nature developed over time, this project is doomed from the start. Physical laws began with the existence of the universe. If they were there from the beginning of physical reality, physical reality cannot explain their origin. Whatever caused them cannot itself be physical. Only an immaterial source can cause physical reality and physical laws. Davies will never solve the dilemma of where the natural laws came from until he opens himself to the metaphysical possibility of God’s existence. Only an immaterial, personal, intelligent, rational, and powerful being could produce physical reality with all of its attendant laws.

 

November 30, 2007

Not a Prooftext for the Deity of Christ

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology, Theology Proper
[17] Comments 

I’ve often heard Christians appeal to Paul’s Damascus road experience in support of the deity of Christ. We read: “As he was going along, approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 So he said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ He replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting!” (Acts 9:3-5)

It’s said that as a monotheistic Jew, Paul’s acknowledgement of Jesus as “Lord” is an explicit attribution of deity. I find this interpretation unlikely. First, the Greek word kurios simply means “master,” and is used of both human persons as well as God. The term applies to anyone who is in a position of authority over someone else. For example, we read that Sarah called Abraham “lord.” If anyone knew Abraham was not a god, it was Sarah! We have no reason to believe Paul used the term because He thought He was speaking to the one true God. He recognized that any voice speaking to him from heaven must be coming from someone who had authority over him, and thus addressed the as-of-yet unknown person with a term that acknowledged his authority.

(more…)

 

November 30, 2007

What I’ve Been Reading: Reinventing Jesus

Posted by Jason Dulle under Book Reviews, Christology, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture, by Daniel Wallace, M. James Sawyer, and J. Ed Komoszewski

I have not enjoyed reading a book this much since I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Reinventing Jesus was released as a response to some of the claims made in The DaVinci Code (TDC), but unlike most of the other books released debunking TDC, this one deals with some of the more substantive issues raised by TDC with very little reference to the book itself.

Reinventing Jesus is divided into five sections:

1. Oral transmission of the Jesus story prior to the Gospels
2. The transmission and preservation of the NT text
3. How the NT canon was formed
4. What the early church thought about Jesu
5. Christianity is not an eclectic form of Greek mystery religions

Sections 2-3 are worth the price of the book. Daniel Wallace wrote the section on the NT text. He is one of the few NT textual critics in the world, so his personal insights are invaluable. James Sawyer wrote on the formation of the canon, a subject he has written about elsewhere.

The book is meant to be an introductory look at the issues. Often that means an intellectually watered down manuscript. Not this one. It is not lacking in intellectual vigor. No matter what your level of understanding, you will learn something from this book. The material is informative, and presented in a logical, clear manner. I give it five stars! Do yourself a favor and read it.

 

November 29, 2007

Singing a Different Tune, Part 2

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Ramesh Ponnuru points out how Newsweek’s science correspondent, Sharon Begley, has changed her tune. When Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research, Begley wrote how this might be “a cruel blow to millions of patients for whom embryonic stem cells might offer the last chance for health and life.” Never a mention of the practical drawbacks and deficiencies of ESCR.

Now that an ethical and more practical alternative to ESCR has been discovered, Begley is downplaying the significance of pluripotent stem cell research in general:

While the research was once hailed as leading directly to cures—by turning stem cells into neuronal cells that could be implanted in patients with Parkinson’s
disease, say—it now looks like something much more mundane: another laboratory tool to study different diseases, yielding insights that would launch the slow, years-long search for new therapies. … [H]aving the new method for creating stem cells is unlikely to lead to treatments and cures any sooner than having only the old one.
…
[I]t will be years before scientists understand reprogrammed stem cells—how to get them to mature into different tissues, for instance.
…
To a public for whom stem cells equal cure, the real blow will be the realization that the simplistic picture—take a patient’s genes, slip them into an egg, let the egg grow and divide into stem cells that are perfect genetic matches for the patient and transplant those cells to treat diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s—is more fiction than fact. … Instead of yielding cures directly, stem cells— reprogrammed and embryonic alike—will take their place alongside other lab systems for studying disease. They will reveal hitherto-unknown causes and pathways of illness, even pointing the way to new drugs. The typical time between such a discovery and a new drug is at least 15 years.

Talk about going from “Yankee Doodle” to “The Death March”!! Why the change in tune? Many commentators have suggested (and I tend to agree) that the change in tune is political. The reason the Left promoted ESCR was because it put a further hedge around abortion rights (you can’t object to killing the unborn when they are your source of cures, but on the other hand, if ESCR is objectionable on moral grounds, then so is abortion by extension), and it allowed the Left to stick it to the President and conservative Christians (portray them as anti-science, lack of compassion). Now that an undeniably superior method for obtaining what they say they wanted all along has come along, and that due largely to the political policies of President Bush, the tune has to change. Now they have to downplay the significance of stem cell research, and admit that cures from pluripotent stem cells are years away. Oh the irony!

HT: Ramesh Ponnuru

 

November 29, 2007

Now They are Singing a Different Tune

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

From an MSNBC article regarding the new iPS cell breakthrough:

“[James] Thomson said he never believed that cloning itself would produce new therapies – and not just because of the moral and ethical qualms about human cloning. ‘Mainly, it’s just hugely inefficient and terribly expensive,’ he said. Rather, Dolly the sheep – and the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells – pointed to potential treatments that could go beyond cloning, and beyond those precious embryonic cells.” According to Thomson, “My feeling is that somatic cell nuclear transfer was an experimental technique, and it could have led to a mechanistic understanding of how reprogramming could occur. But I was skeptical that it could ever enter the clinic because of practical reasons.”

What a revelation this is. I may be wrong, but I don’t recall Thomson saying any such thing previously. Why didn’t he speak up when CA was asking its citizens to fork over $6,000,000,000 dollars to pay for cloning and ESCR, on the promise that cures were right around the corner, and that the research would bring a windfall of profits to CA? It’s real convenient to play mum until after better research comes along.

 

November 28, 2007

Anti Science?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Ron Reagan Jr. campaigned for embryonic stem cell research during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Aware of the fact that many opposed ESCR on moral grounds, Reagan quipped, “The theology of the few should not be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many.” From then on, the pro-ESCR strategy was to make this an issue of a war between theology and science; those who want cures, and those who don’t. Commenting on the logic of this, Rich Lowry writes: “Democrats loved this narrative: theology versus science, with its echo of the Inquisition repressing Galileo. It drove the charge that the Bush administration was waging ‘a war on science.’ As if placing ethical bounds on science is a denial of the scientific method and the value of research itself. By this logic, speed limits are ‘anti-driving,’ guardrails are ‘anti-highway,’ and meat inspections ‘anti-food.’”[1]

Exactly! Those with moral objections to certain scientific ventures such as cloning or ESCR are not anti-science or anti-cures. They are people who recognize that the ends do not always justify the means, and that science must be guided by morality lest science become a tool of tyranny.

[1]Rich Lowry, “Science Trumps Politics”; available from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE4YTEwOTI0YmY0NjRlNTI5Mjc5NDIzMjA3NWY4Y2Q=; Internet; accessed 27 November 2007.

 

November 28, 2007

Big Stem Cell News!

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Stem Cell Research
1 Comment 

This may be old news for some of you, but I was on vacation all last week and could not post anything about it until now. Two teams of scientists, one American and one Japanese, have independently discovered a way to revert adult cells into pluripotent form (functional equivalent to embryonic stem cells). This discovery will likely solve the moral dilemma posed by embryonic stem cell research. This is BIG news! See EurekAlert 1, EurekAlert 2, EurekAlert 3, EurekAlert 4, National Geographic News, BreitBart.com, BBC News 1, BBC News 2, MSNBC and and PhysOrg for sample media reports.

Scientists claim embryonic stem cells hold the greatest potential for cures because they are pluripotent (meaning they are able to turn into any one of the body’s 220 cells). The ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is that to obtain ESCs, the embryo has to be killed. For this, and other practical reasons, alternative methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells have been sought.

What the two teams of scientists just discovered was a means of obtaining stem cells that possess all the characteristics of ESCs (such as pluripotency, indefinite self-renewal, etc.), without having to kill embryos to get them. In fact, this new method does not even involve the use of embryos.

To obtain the pluripotent cells scientists inserted a recipe of four genes (Oct3/4, Sox2, c-Myc and Klf4 in the Japanese study, and OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28 in the American study) into adult skin cells (fibroblasts). These genes have the effect of reprogramming the skin cell so that it regresses back to its pluripotent state, becoming the functional (and nearly biological) equivalent of an embryonic stem cell. It de-differentiates the differentiated skin cells just as in cloning, but unlike cloning, the “product” is a pluripotent stem cell, not an embryo. This process is being called somatic cell reprogramming, or cell regression. The altered cells are being called “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells,” or iPS.

Robert Lanza noted the significance of this breakthrough when he said, “It’s the holy grail. It’s like turning lead into gold.”

Not only is this method morally advantageous to ESCR, but it is practically advantageous as well. There are not enough surplus IVF embryos available for ESCR, and there is a lack of eggs for use in cloning new embryos (not to mention the fact that cloning is an additional moral concern, and has proved unfruitful to date). In contrast, somatic cell reprogramming is an easy process that is not dependent on embryos or donor eggs. We can reprogram as many skin stem cells as there are people with skin! Somatic cell reprogramming has the potential to give us an unlimited supply of pluripotent stem cells. Furthermore, unlike stem cells from surplus embryos, iPS cells are genetically identical to their donor, and thus pose no risk of rejection when inserted into their body.

There are still kinks to be worked out, namely, how to remove the copies of the four genes from the stem cell once they have done their job. “The crucial next step is to find a way to switch on the genes that cause the skin cells to regress into stem cells rather than relying on the retrovirus to insert the genes.”[1] And of course, many of the same practical difficulties involved with the use of embryonic stem cells apply to iPS cells as well, such as their tendency to form tumors, and our lack of ability to control their differentiation. So this breakthrough brings us no closer to developing treatments and cures using pluripotent stem cells. The only stem cell treatments to date come from multipotent stem cells, more commonly referred to as adult stem cells.

Somatic cell reprogramming is so promising that even Ian Wilmut, creator of the somatic cell nucler transfer method of cloning, announced that he is abandoning therapeutic cloning in favor of cell regression. He said, “I am anticipating that before too long we will be able to use the Yamanaka approach to achieve the same, without making human embryos. I have no doubt that in the long term, direct reprogramming will be more productive, though we can’t be sure exactly when, next year or five years into the future.”[2]

Now, the only reason to continue the pursuit of cloning embryos is if we want to birth them, or involve ourselves in genetic engineering of humans. Since those pressing for cloning were so adamant to denounce this “form” of cloning, it will be hard to make a case for it now. I’m sure some will continue to do so, however, because they want to genetically engineer humans, and birth clones. Others have financial interests in ESCR and cloning that are not easily disentangled. A lot of money was bet on ESCR and cloning, so a lot of people have a lot to lose. They will not let go of their money and their interests easily. We’ll have to wait and see how it all pans out.

 

November 16, 2007

Dan Wallace on What Constitutes a Textual Variant

Posted by Jason Dulle under Textual Criticism, Theology
[4] Comments 

I would highly recommend you read a couple of blog posts (1 and 2) from Daniel Wallace at Parchment and Pen on the topic of textual criticism. Few are better equipped to address the issue than Wallace. He is very involved in the study of the Greek manuscripts, and very knowledgeable in the field of textual criticism.

Wallace notes that many Christians falsely define what a textual variant is, and misunderstand how textual critics have arrived at the conclusion that the NT text contains 300-400K variants. It is commonly believed that this number is so large because any given textual variant, when it appears in multiple manuscripts, is counted multiple times. So if a single variant in Romans 5:1 appears in 10 different manuscripts, it is counted as 10 variants. Not so. Read Wallace’s posts to uncover the truth about how textual variants are counted.

 

November 15, 2007

Now Santa Can’t Say “Ho Ho Ho”!

Posted by Jason Dulle under Political Incorrectness
1 Comment 

An Australian “santa staffing” firm is suggesting to their Santa trainees to replace the traditional “ho ho ho” with “ha ha ha” so as not to offend women or scare children. Come on!!! First Santa has to trim down, now he has to censor his speech. What’s next? Will he be forced to give up his reindeer, because making reindeer fly all night might be viewed as animal cruelty? Will he be forced to leave presents outside the house, because coming down the chimney might be viewed as breaking an entry? We wouldn’t want kids to think criminal activity is ok!

 

November 13, 2007

Are You Taking the Name of the Lord in Vain?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Hamartiology, Theology
1 Comment 

As opposed as I am to people using God’s name in useless ways such as an exclamation (“God!” or “Oh my God!”) or an expletive (“God d**n it!”), admittedly, this is not what Scripture means when it tells us not to take the name of the Lord in vain.


Read C. Michael Patton’s blog entry on this issue, particularly point #3. He makes it clear that while many of us would never think of saying “God d**n it,” we commonly take His name in vain without realizing it. Read it, and then think twice next time before you proclaim God told you such and such.

 

November 13, 2007

Differences in the Gospels…update

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible Difficulties, Theology
[3] Comments 

Back in May I posted a blog entry titled “Differences in the Gospels” in which I discussed some of the supposed contradictions the Gospels, and how they are not actual contradictions. As a case study I examined John’s report of Jesus baptizing in Judea. In one place he says Jesus baptized, while a little later he says it was Jesus’ disciples, and not Jesus Himself. If it was Luke rather than John who had noted that it was Jesus’ disciples, not Jesus Himself, who baptized, people would claim a contradiction between Luke and John. Since both appear in John, however, it is clear that there is no contradiction. It only illustrates the flexibility in which the Biblical authors reported historical events. John so no contradiction at all. I argued that this is illustrative of how we ought to view other supposed contradictions between the Gospels.

I just updated that post to include another example similar to the one above. In John 20:1 John only mentions Mary Magdalene as a witness to Jesus’ resurrection, while the other Gospel authors report a plurality of women (the lists differ as to who is identified). Some see this as a contradiction. And yet in the very next verse John records Mary as saying to the apostles, “We do not know where they have laid him.” While John only names Mary as a witness, he is clearly aware of the fact that there were more present than just Mary. Again, such ways of speaking should alert us not to be too rigid in our interpretation of the Gospels. We cannot impose modern standards of historiography on the apostles and the texts they created.

 

November 12, 2007

What I’ve Been Reading: Beyond Death | The Missing Gospels

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Book Reviews, Christology, Mind, Philosophy, Theistic Arguments, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Beyond Death, by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland

This book is a comprehensive examination of the afterlife. The book begins with an examination of traditional arguments for the afterlife, showing both their strengths and weaknesses. It goes on to argue for the existence of the soul, as well as explore the nature of the soul.

The centerpiece of their case rests on near-death experiences. They detail many documented cases, as well as speak of the ongoing research in this area. This section is worth the cost of the book.

They also address the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, reincarnation, and explore the nature of our existence beyond death.

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, by Darrel Bock

This book is an introductory look at the so-called lost Gospels some scholars claim challenge the very notion of Christian orthodoxy. The “new school” maintains that the early church held to a diverse set of beliefs, and those who call “orthodox” did not become orthodox until the third century via political maneuvering. The Missing Gospels attempts to show that the new school interpretation of Christian history is mistaken.

Bock contrasts the Gnostic materials with the Biblical and post-apostolic writings of the Fathers on four key ideas: (1) God and creation; (2) the person of Jesus as human and divine; (3) salvation; (4) the purpose of Jesus’ life and death. He concludes that the Gnostic materials present a radically different picture of Christianity than orthodoxy.

I would recommend this book for anyone interested in better familiarizing themselves with the Gnostic materials, as well as providing an answer to those who claim Gnosticism was one of a variety of original Christianities.

 

November 6, 2007

How is “Jesus” the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Baptism, Theology, Theology Proper
[189] Comments 

Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) understand Matthew 28:19 to refer to the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus said we are to be baptized in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He did not say names (plural), which we would expect grammatically if He literally wanted us to repeat “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” over the baptizee. His use of the singular “name,” as well as the context indicates He had a singular name in mind: His own = Jesus. Looking at how the apostles obeyed His command confirms this interpretation, for they always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

I’m taking this as a given. What I want to focus on is how “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. OPs often interpret this verse to mean the name of the Father is Jesus, the name of the Son is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. I am not persuaded this is the correct interpretation. Such an interpretation is foreign to the rest of Scripture. While Scripture identifies the name of the Son as Jesus, nowhere does it identify “Jesus” as the name of the Father and the name of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture consistently uses Jesus/Son in contradistinction to Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus is used to refer to God’s human mode of existence as the Son/Messiah. Father is used to refer to God’s supracarnate existence (i.e. God’s existence beyond the incarnation). Scripture does not call the Father “Jesus” anymore than it calls Jesus “Father.” While Scripture teaches us that Jesus’ deity is the deity of the Father, it consistently distinguishes between the appellations “Father” and “Jesus” because these appellations are representative of the distinction in the uni-personal God’s modes of existence. To confuse the appellations is to confuse God’s two modes of existence: as God, as man. If we interpret Matthew 28:19 to mean the name of the Father is Jesus, however, we are doing just that: confusing the existential distinction between God’s existence as God, and His existence as man. If Scripture uses the name Jesus to refer to the Son and only the Son, we should not use it to refer to the Father and Holy Spirit as if it equally applies. While we may understand God to be one person, and recognize that Jesus’ deity is that of the Father, it does not give us license to use Biblical terms in unbiblical ways.

 

If you accept my reason for questioning the traditional interpretation, how do you think we should understand Jesus’ words? I have my own take on it, but I want to hold off sharing it until after I hear from you.

 

If you object to my reason for objecting to the traditional OP interpretation, and maintain the traditional view, what do you find problematic about my objection? Do you have any reasons you can provide me for accepting the traditional OP interpretation?

 

November 5, 2007

Why I hate political correctness

Posted by Jason Dulle under Political Incorrectness
Leave a Comment 

Santa is being told to slim down to set a good example for the kids in England. When will this insanity stop!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »