August 15, 2007

Should Christians Call God “Allah”?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Islam, Religions
[15] Comments 

A Dutch Catholic priest, Tiny Muskens, argues that Christians should begin calling God, “Allah.” Why? To ease Christian-Muslim tensions. What might God think about this? According to Muskens God is above such bickering over what He is called.

 

Muskens was a missionary in Indonesia for 30 years, and points out how Christians in Indonesia call God “Allah.” In their language, that is the generic reference for God, equivalent to the English “God.” If they can do it, and no one has a problem with it, why can’t we do the same as well?

 

I think Muskens’s suggestion is misguided for three reasons. First, I don’t think one can make a Biblical case that God is unconcerned with what we call Him. He has chosen to reveal Himself to us with certain names and titles. We cannot just ignore those, or interchange them with some other name if it suits our fancy to do so. For example, we can’t call Him “Xenon” because we think that’s a cool name. That is disrespectful to the God who has revealed Himself, and His name, to man.

 

Having said that, I understand that the English word “God” is just an English translation of the Hebrew elohim. There is nothing special about the English word “God.” We could just as well use the French word Dieu, or the Italian Dio, or the German Gott…and would do so if we spoke French, Italian, or German, because that is the equivalent word for elohim in those languages. But we do not speak those languages. Likewise, we do not speak Arabic, or live in countries where Muslim influence has made it so that the only term that exists for God in the native language is “Allah.” So there is no reason for us to use “Allah” to refer to God.

 

Second, I think Muskens’s suggestion would have the opposite effect He envisions. It is one thing for Christians to call God “Allah” in a nation whose language has no other name for God, but it a whole other matter for those who have an alternative name to begin using “Allah” to identify their God. In the former case the usage is necessary; in the latter it is not. Most Christians are Trinitarian. The triune God of Christianity is repugnant to Muslims. To call that God by the same name as the Muslim God when it is not necessary to do so, is likely to be seen as blasphemous, for it would associate Allah with a false God. That will hardly help Muslim-Christian relations!

 

Thirdly, even if Muslims would not be offended by our change from “God” to “Allah”, what makes us think this change would ease Muslims-Christian tensions? Does Muskens think Muslims won’t be privy to the fact that the change in terminology has nothing to do with a change in our beliefs? Their problem with Christians is not that we do not call God “Allah”, but that we do not follow Islam. Calling the Christian God “Allah” will do nothing to change that fact, and thus it can do nothing to ease Muslim-Christian tensions.

 

One final thing to consider…. Why is it that Christians need to change the word we use to refer to the Supreme Deity? Why isn’t Muskens calling on Muslims to start calling Allah, “God”? I would venture to say it is because he knows they would never do so. They would likely see it as an affront to Islam, and may resort to violence and killing like they did in the case of the Danish cartoons. It’s much easier and safer to tell Christians to change their language. Muskens knows Christians are tolerant, even of those who disrespect their religion.

 

August 13, 2007

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Talk Nonsense on Gay Issues

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

Last Thursday six Democratic presidential hopefuls attended a forum focusing on gay issues, sponsored by a gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, and hosted by Logo, a gay TV channel.

There were a couple of statements that stood out to me. The always astute John Edwards said we have to speak out about intolerance lest it becomes “OK for the Republicans in their politics to divide America and use hate-mongering to separate us.” To accuse Republicans of dividing America when there are two political parties that are divided on issues is a little ironic. And talk about hate-mongering: he is guilty of fostering hatred toward Republicans by accusing them of hate-mongering. He is separating Americans by dividing non-Republicans from Republicans.

New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, indicated that he thinks the nation is headed toward marriage equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals (same-sex marriage), but thinks that “what is achievable” right now “is civil unions with full marriage rights.” In other words, what is achievable right now is to give homosexuals all the rights that belong to traditional marriage, but just call it something else. Eventually, once the public gets used to the legal recognition of homosexual couples, the name will be changed from civil unions to marriage. This approach is so deceptive. Civil unions of this sort are de facto marriage—marriage by another name. The fight over marriage is not about who gets to use the word marriage, but the legal recognition of homosexual couples.

Even though people like Richardson support giving homosexuals all the benefits of marriage, some homosexuals still aren’t happy. Human Rights Campaign president, Joe Solmonese said, “The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear.” These types of statements make it clear that the fight for same-sex marriage is not about the benefits, but social approval. The fact of the matter is that if they were only interested in being treated equally, they would be satisfied with civil unions. But they aren’t. They want their relationships to be viewed as equal to heterosexual relationships. They want the same sort of public approval afforded to heterosexual couples, and nothing short of calling their legally recognized relationships “marriage” will achieve this.

In one sense I agree with Solmonese. He has every right to question why people are willing to give homosexuals all the same benefits of marriage, but not call it marriage. This is like saying “You can be employed at the same place we’re employed, work just like we work, make the same money we make, get the same health insurance we get, but you will not have a ‘job.’ ” That makes no sense.

 

August 12, 2007

Not for prophet

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

A common attitude toward the gift of prophecy is that those who exercise the gift may get it wrong from time to time, but that’s just the nature of the game. Prophecy is something that must be practiced. We learn the gift by trial and error. We are humans, after all, and we make mistakes. Sometimes we are “spot on”, and sometimes we “miss it.” So the story goes.

I find this view of the prophetic gift to be in stark contrast to the Biblical portrayal of prophecy. If a person claimed to speak for God, and what s/he prophesied did not come to pass, that person was considered a false prophet and was to be executed (Dt 18:20-22). We read of Samuel that “none of his prophecies fell to the ground unfulfilled. All Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba realized that Samuel was confirmed as a prophet of the Lord” (1Sam 3:19-20). What confirmed Samuel as a prophet was that his prophecies were accurate 100% of the time.

Prophets had to get it right 100% of the time. There was no room for trial and error. Indeed, when you understand the nature of prophecy, it’s perfectly understandable why true prophets will always bat 1.000. Prophecy is God’s revelatory communication to humans via a particular individual. God never “misses it,” so how could it be that someone with the gift of prophecy could ever “miss it”?

Could there be a problem with the transmission? God tells the person what to say, but s/he misunderstands what God has spoken. But how could this be? God doesn’t try. He doesn’t try to communicate His message to the prophet but fails to do so. If God wants to communicate something to someone, He will surely succeed in doing so. While the human may choose not to pass on what God has communicated, God will ensure that His message is understood. That’s why God could say that a person who “missed it” even once should be executed. It’s because God is always clear in His communication, making it impossible for the prophet to “miss it.”

Perhaps someone could “miss it” because they mistakenly identify their own thoughts as God’s. But this presupposes that the way God communicates is so unclear that we can mistake our own thoughts for God’s. Where in Scripture do we see God speaking to people in an ambiguous manner? God spoke to both believers and unbelievers alike, and no one ever had any question as to who was speaking or what was spoken. If God desires to speak, He will make Himself and His message clear. There was no mistaking God’s message. No one in the Bible ever said “I think God is speaking to me” or “I think this is what God is saying to me.” Prophesying is not a skill someone learns. If God gives you a prophetic word, you will know it’s coming from God and you will know precisely what to say.

To think that those who prophesy today have the liberty to get it wrong from time to time, one must presuppose that the nature of prophecy in the NT era is different from that of the OT era, but why think this? Is there some NT text that says this? No. So why think NT saints using the gift of prophecy have room for error whereas OT saints using the gift of prophecy did not?

This brings me to my next point: The content of most modern-day prophecies do not resemble the prophetic gift as portrayed in Scripture.

Is it really prophecy?

What passes for prophecy these days rarely bears the marks of Biblical prophecy. The vast majority of prophecies do not predict anything, or communicate things that only God could know. They are usually just words of encouragement that – apart from the introduction “Thus says the Lord” – sound indistinguishable from a mini sermon.

The distinguishing mark of prophecy is that it is predictive in nature, as evidenced by God’s test for a prophet (Dt 18:20-22). According to YHWH, the Israelites could discern a true prophet from a false prophet by observing if their prophecy “came to pass” (Dt 18:22). Something can only come to pass if it pertains to the future. We read that none of Samuel’s prophecies went unfulfilled. A prophecy that has nothing to do with the future cannot be “fulfilled.” This is not to say that all prophecies are predictive in nature, but we should expect at least some prophecies to be predictive in nature.

There are only two examples in the NT where we see the gift of prophecy in operation, and both entailed a prediction regarding the future: Agabus predicted a (1) great famine in Acts 11:28 and (2) Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem in Acts 21:10-11. So why should we think that the gift of prophecy is only for encouragement rather than predicting something about the future?

A genuine prophetic utterance should typically tell us something about the future. Most purported prophetic utterances today, however, do not, and thus I have little reason to believe they are genuine prophetic utterances. It’s easy to speak some encouraging words. It’s not so easy to predict the future.

Wrapping up

Based on what prophecy is – God’s revelatory communication to man – it stands to reason that no one who genuinely has the gift of prophecy could ever “miss it.” They will be right 100% of the time because the God who gives them the information is right 100% of the time and ensures that the person will understand the source and message 100% of the time. If a person claims to be a prophet or claims to be used in the gift of prophecy, but they never give a predictive and testable prophecy, or if they have prophesied something that did not come to pass, then we know that such a person is not a prophet, is not being used in the gift of prophecy, and should not be trusted as an oracle of God.

I think many well-meaning people are mistaking personal ideas/impressions/feelings (self-talk) as words from God, and attaching divine authority to them. Most of these people do not predict anything, but want to be considered prophets. If they do not have a track record of predicting events that have come to pass, then we have no reason to consider them a prophet or a person who is used in the gift of prophecy. Paul told us to judge prophecies (1Cor 14:29). We can only do so if we employ the Biblical criteria for prophecies: (1) they come to pass; (2) the person uttering them is a reliable spokesman for God, evidenced by the fact that s/he has never been mistaken in what s/he has prophesied.

 

August 9, 2007

How to Disagree Without Sounding Disagreeable

Posted by Jason Dulle under Tactics
Leave a Comment 

In our culture it is considered impolite, if not intolerant to disagree with someone else’s religious or moral ideas. Personally, I feel uncomfortable when speaking to someone who is asserting religious or moral ideas I find to be flawed, because I want to voice my concerns with their thinking, but do not want to appear rude or argumentative. How do we disagree without sounding disagreeable?

One way is to make your disagreement known is to ask, “Why do you believe that?” (this is a variation of Stand to Reason’s Columbo Tactic). There are three benefits to this approach. First, the mere posing of the question alerts the individual that you question their truth-claim, but does so in a non-threatening, non-contentious manner. Second, asking questions about their beliefs will likely be perceived as flattering, because it is an invitation for them to speak their mind, rather than listen to you speak yours. Thirdly, it forces them to shoulder the burden of proof for their claim.

Upon hearing their reasons (if any are even given) and manner of reasoning, you can ask further questions to expose faulty premises or flawed logic. The ultimate goal is to get them to question the veracity of their beliefs. Once they see the problem in their thinking, offer what you believe to be true about the matter, and offer for their consideration the reasons you hold to that belief.

 

August 8, 2007

Is it immoral to speed?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Hamartiology, Theology
[2] Comments 

I think it goes without saying that speeding is the breaking of a civil law, not a moral law, and yet Paul and Peter both taught that Christians have a moral obligation to obey the civil laws of the land:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. (Romans 13:1-2, 5)


Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme 2:14 or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. 2:15 For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. (I Peter 2:13-15)

Neither text says it is morally wrong to disobey civil laws, but is this implied? Yes? No?


What about speeding? It is the breaking of a civil law. If these passages imply that breaking a civil law is a moral failure, that would mean that speeding is morally wrong. But I find it hard to believe that it could be a moral issue, because the speed at which one travels is not a moral matter. Disobedience to established authorities, however, is a moral matter. So could it be that speeding is immoral, not because one is speeding, but because one is disobeying God-established civil authority?


What about this take on the issue? A chunk of the concern that motivated Peter and Paul to pen those words was the preservation of the reputation of Christians as law-abiding citizens, not enemies of the state. If Christians were disregarding the laws of the land, they would be marked out as troublemakers and would be persecuted against. To avoid that, the apostles taught strict adherence to civil law. Given the prevalence of speeding in all segments of our society, do you think Christians who speed would give a bad reputation to Christians as Christians? Would the name of Christ be tarnished because I am going 77 in a 65?

 

July 30, 2007

Tactic: What to Say When JW or Mormon Knocks on Your Door

Posted by Jason Dulle under Tactics
[10] Comments 

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason ministries developed a great tactic to use when a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness comes knocking on your door. It’s easy to remember, and it doesn’t require that you know much about either religion:

First, I ask them, “If you discovered you were mistaken about your faith, would you be willing to
change your religion?” This question is critical because it exposes whether or not they’re a genuine truth seeker. They are presumably there to show you’re mistaken about your faith and should change it after they show you the truth. If not, then I point out how their position is unreasonable and thank them for coming to visit. I try to avoid spending time with people who are not genuine
truth seekers and are not willing to follow the evidence where it leads. You can waste a lot of time talking to people who are closed to the truth.

Second, I ask them, “Can you offer me three objective reasons or evidences for why you believe your religion is true?” Notice this question immediately shifts the burden of proof to them, where it belongs. It takes the pressure off you and gives you valuable insight into their rationale. Remember, they’ve come to you. You’re under no obligation to jump through their hoops and answer their questions. Just be sure to keep them on track and not let them deviate from the question at hand. They’re often hard pressed to offer you convincing objective reasons. Mormons often ask you to pray and ask God to reveal the truth to you. This is not an objective reason or evidence, however, so don’t let them get away with offering it as an answer.[1]

 

[1]Alan Shlemon, “Making an Impact Without Knowing Very Much”; available from http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/07/making-an-impac.html; Internet; accessed 30 July 2007.

 

July 30, 2007

What it means to be a secular society

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics, Social
Leave a Comment 

Tullian Tchividjian penned a great description of what it means to be a “secular” society:

The word “secularization” is a fancy term used by social scientists to identify the process through which God and the supernatural are relegated to the fringe of what’s important in society. A secularized society is a society that has determined to make God and the supernatural socially irrelevant even if they remain personally engaging. It restricts the relevance of God to the private sphere only. This has created, according to Richard John Neuhaus, “a naked public square.” That is, God may be important individually but he is rather unimportant socially and culturally. He may be alive and well privately but publicly he is dead.[1]

[1]Tullian Tchividjian, “The Irrelevance of God”; available from http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/07/irrelevance-of-god.html; Internet; accessed 30 July 2007.

 

July 30, 2007

How to avoid anonymous comments

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends
Leave a Comment 

Some of the readers of this blog post anonymously. Some do so by choice, while others do so because they do not have a blog id that comes with having your own blog account with blogger.com.

If you want to reveal your identity in a particular comment (I would prefer that you do), you can do so without opening a blogger.com account. The easiest way is to finish your comment with your name. The other way is to select the “other” option under “Choose an identity.” You will see this right below the text box in the comments section. If you select “other” you can type in the name you want to appear at the top of your comment.

 

July 26, 2007

Is God Unknowable?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Nature of God, Religions, Theology, Theology Proper
[4] Comments 
Many Eastern religions make this claim about God. So do Muslims. Unfortunately it is incoherent.

To say God is unknowable is either a statement about God, or a statement about ourselves. If it is a statement about God it is an affirmation that he has no properties capable of being known. And yet having at least one property is what differentiates existence from non-existence. If God has no properties, then he doesn’t exist. If it is a statement about ourselves—our ability to know a God with specific properties—then it is self-refuting because the statement itself is a claim to know something about God: he is unknowable. If God was unknowable, we would not even be able to know that He was unknowable. This can be pointed out by asking, “How do you know God is unknowable if nothing can be known of God? Isn’t that something you know about him?”

Either way you look at it, that statement is incoherent.
 

July 26, 2007

Quote of the Day: How Naturalism and Postmodernism Strip Meaning from the World

Posted by Jason Dulle under Quote of the Day, Worldview
Leave a Comment 

“Western culture is pervaded with scientific naturalism and with postmodernism. The first of these strips the world of spirit, the other of knowledge. Both take away the hope of ultimate, transcendent meaning. Naturalism denies there is anything more to life than what we can touch and see, and postmodernism says there is almost nothing beyond ourselves that we can truly know.”


—Tom Gilson, in his review of J.P. Moreland’s Kingdom Triangle, available at http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C2031585454/E20070625223226/

 

July 16, 2007

The Most Unlikely of People Proclaiming the Supernatural is Alive and Well

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

I intended to send this out some time back, but never got around to doing so.

J.P. Moreland is a Christian philosopher extraordinaire. I’ve read a lot of his material, and he is a hardcore evangelical intellectual (yes, those terms can go together!). So it was surprising when I heard him speaking of the supernatural during a radio interview with Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. He spoke of how the Gospel is spreading in other parts of the world—particularly the Muslim world—through supernatural events. I’ve heard a lot of amazing stories of the miraculous in Pentecostal circles, but I have to admit that these stories are even more amazing. And I’m not talking about healings! Listen to the broadcast. You’ll be glad you did!

The interview took place during the second hour of the program, so jump ahead to the 58:00 marker where the interview begins (you may have to wait a few minutes for your computer to download the broadcast to the point where you can jump ahead that far).

 

July 12, 2007

Why have a Hindu-led prayer in the Senate?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics, Religions
1 Comment 

Today, for the first time in this nation’s history, a Hindu led the opening prayer in the Senate. When I first heard about this I was not particularly troubled. I understand that this country is not a Christian nation, politically speaking. While the political philosophy of the founders was informed by Judaeo-Christian principles, and the vast majority of the citizens of this country are Christian, our government is not. There is no governmental basis on which I can say Christian and Jewish-led prayers in the Senate are acceptable, but Hindu-led prayers are not.

But the more I thought about it, I began to be troubled. What bothered me is the apparent motive for doing this. The offering of prayer in the Senate is for the benefit of the senators. There have been Jewish and Christian senators, and thus there have been Jewish and Christian ministers who have offered prayers before the Senate. To my knowledge, however, no U.S. Senator is of the Hindu religion. If no senator is Hindu, why invite a Hindu to offer a prayer? Who does it benefit? No one in the Senate!

On the face of it, it seems the motive for inviting the Hindu was to display a sense of religious open-mindedness. I’m not talking about the kind that is open to hearing what other religions have to say, but the kind that says all religions are basically the same and deserve equal time. If there were a Hindu in the Senate, I would not object. But without a Hindu in the Senate, this prayer was nothing more than a ploy for multiculturalist, relativistic philosophy.

 

July 7, 2007

When Was This Inspired?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Most of the book of Proverbs was written by Solomon, but Proverbs 30 and 31 were authored by Agur and King Lemuel respectively. King Lemuel’s proverbs are said to reflect his mother’s teachings. When it comes to inspiration, when were these proverbs inspired: Was it when King Lemuel’s mother spoke it to Lemuel, when he wrote it down, or when the compiler(s) of the proverbs that became the canonical Book of Proverbs incorporated them into the book?

 

July 7, 2007

Are There Non-inspired Verses in our Bibles?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Psalm 72:20: “This collection of the prayers of David son of Jesse ends here.” Clearly these are the words of a later editor of the psalms, adding a structural marker to the Psalter. These are not the words of the inspired psalmist. Would you say this verse is the inspired word of God, or is it just an ancient editorial comment that is found in the Word of God?

 

July 7, 2007

Fit This into Your View of Biblical Inspiration

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Conservative Christians (such as myself) hold that the Bible is inspired by God. What we often do not think about, however, is how God inspired the Bible. We know God and man were involved in the final product, but what was the relationship between the two parties? I would venture to say that most conservative Christians picture the process of inspiration as some sort of mechanical dictation, in which God is telling the author precisely what to write, and the author writes it. Others hold to a conceptual model of inspiration in which God directs the author’s thoughts and concepts to reflect God’s intentions for the writing, but allows the author to clothe them with their own choice of words.

Can these models account for all we read in Scripture? It seems not. There are select passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that at least some of the authors were unaware that what they were writing was being inspired by the Spirit. Consider the following:

In I Corinthians 1:12-17 Paul addressed the issue of factions developing around certain high-profile Christian personalities. Some were claiming to be followers of Paul, while others claimed to follow Peter, and others Christ. To expose these factions as unchristian, Paul directed their attention back to their baptisms. Rhetorically, Paul asked if they had been baptized in his name. No. They were baptized in the name of Christ, and as such they must be followers of Christ, not Peter or Paul.

Not only were they not baptized in the name of Paul, but only a few of them were even baptized by Paul. Paul wrote, “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name” (vs. 14-15). This completes Paul’s thought. In the next verse, however, Paul adds another name to the list: “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other” (v. 16). While Paul was writing verses 14-15, he only recalled baptizing two Corinthians, but then remembers one more and pens verse 16. Is that all Paul? He wasn’t so sure, so added a disclaimer that he does not recall baptizing anyone else.

Did God direct Paul to forget (or write as if he forgot), then remember baptizing the household of Stephanas, and to add a disclaimer to cover himself lest there be someone else he baptized that the Spirit directed him to forget? Is this a case of a divinely directed slip-of-the-mind? Was Paul aware of what the Spirit was doing? On a mechanical dictation model the answer is yes. I find that far-fetched. It seems highly unlikely that mechanical dictation was the means by which Paul inspired Paul to write, and unlikely that Paul was aware of the Spirit’s inspiration as wrote the epistle. He had a genuine experience of momentary forgetfulness.

Even if Paul was aware that he was being inspired by God as he wrote, how do we incorporate I Corinthians 1:14-16 into our view of inspiration? If the Holy Spirit was inspiring Paul to write, why didn’t the Holy Spirit bring back to Paul’s memory all of the people he baptized in Corinth, prior to writing those verses? Why allow Paul to record his forgetfulness? Doesn’t that cast doubt on the Holy Spirit’s superintendence of the writing? Could this mean that divine inspiration is not enough to overcome the human weaknesses of the authors? Could there be other places in which the author’s memory did not serve him well, but he was not able to correct himself as did Paul? How would you respond to these questions?

Or consider II Timothy 4:13. In a very personal letter to Timothy, Paul asked Timothy to bring him his cloak, books, and parchments when he comes to visit. If Paul realized this letter was being inspired for God, would he have made such personal comments? This is not to say God did not inspire Paul to write this, but it is to say it seems unlikely that Paul knew God was inspiring him to write it. From Paul’s perspective, this was a personal request to a friend, in a personal letter. I highly doubt Paul knew this letter was being superintended by the Spirit, and would be collected into a corpus of writings to be used by Christians everywhere for millennia to come.

What do you think? How does this affect your view of inspiration?

For further reading on my view of Biblical inspiration, go here.

 

June 29, 2007

Al Mohler on why Mormonism is not Christian

Posted by Jason Dulle under Mormonism, Religions
[11] Comments 

“We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.

“Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.

“In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

“Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.

“Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that ‘Christian’ is a word that ‘is not honorific but descriptive.’ Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.

“Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.”

Albert Mohler, “Are Mormons Christians? — A Beliefnet.com Debate”; available from http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=969; Internet; accessed 29 June 2007.

 

June 29, 2007

Ethical Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

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

I’ve heard a lot of pro-human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) politicians talking about the need for “ethical stem cell research” lately. But this begs the question, and ignores the ethical portion of the debate. The ethical debate centers on the way embryonic stem cells are obtained: by killing human embryos. If the anti-ESCR group is right, and killing embryos for their stem cells is morally wrong, then there is no ethical way to conduct ESCR, because it kills the embryo every time. From an anti-ESCR perspective, when a pro-ESCR advocate talks about the need for ethical ESCR, it is as morally intelligible as saying we need an ethical way of killing minorities. There is no way it could ever be ethical, because the act itself is morally wrong!

If one doesn’t see killing a human embryo as unethical, I don’t know what other aspect of ESCR could be considered unethical. A pro-ESCR advocate might respond that how scientists procure eggs for the research might be unethical (paying women for their eggs), but this confuses cloning (in which eggs are needed) with ESCR (in which embryos, not eggs are needed). Of course, conflating the two distinct arms of research is a strategical move on the part of cloning advocates, in which they hope to gain support for cloning (which lacks popular support) by trying to play it off as part and parcel of embryonic stem cell research (which has popular support). But I digress. The fact of the matter is that apart from killing the embryo, there are no substantive ethical concerns with ESCR (excluding those concerns that accompany all medical research).

Of course, as I reported a few days ago, scientists are starting to discover possible ways to obtain embryonic-like stem cells without having to create, or destroy an embryo. That would be the only ethical way to conduct ESCR. Unfortunately, that’s not what the politicians have in mind when they talk about ethical stem cell research, and that’s not the type of research they are trying to pass legislation for.

 

June 27, 2007

The AMA is talking about implanting a device under the skin to store medical information

Posted by Jason Dulle under Eschatology, Theology
[18] Comments 

Read the article.

The concept is not new. The technology is not new. But when the American Medical Association is talking about its use in humans, that’s a big deal.

Many Christians believe similar technology will be used as the Mark of the Beast. Others believe this technology is the Mark of the Beast. What do you think?

 

June 26, 2007

The Silencing of Conservative Viewpoints in Europe

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics
1 Comment 

Check out this article in The Brussels Journal about how Europe is silencing conservative viewpoints. Last week a German pastor was sentenced to one year in jail for pro-life statements. His crime? He compared abortion to the Holocaust. He’s not the only pro-lifer to be convicted for being public about his views either. Even calling abortion unjust can land you in jail in Germany.

The Council of Europe (human rights organization) is set to vote on whether to allow Creationism and Intelligent Design. Some are arguing these viewpoints should not be tolerated because they are connected with religious extremism, and detrimental to democracy and human rights.

Read the article for details, as well as other views Europeon countries are trying to silence.

Update: The Council of Europe vote regarding Creationism and Intelligent Design has been called off. I also discovered that even if it had been voted on, and passed, it would not be binding on the 47 member states.

Update: LifeSite, who issued the news about the pro-lifer jailed in Germany, has retracted the story. Apparently their source was bad. The man was jailed for denying the Holocaust, not for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Although he has been jailed in the past for pro-life activities.

 

June 19, 2007

The Sadducees Didn’t Deny the Existence of Angels

Posted by Jason Dulle under Resurrection, Theology
Leave a Comment 

N.T. Wright offered some insight to Acts 23:7-9 in his tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Luke said the Sadducees deny the resurrection, angels, and spirits, whereas the Pharisees confessed them all. What is meant by resurrection is quite clear (a return to bodily life after death), but what is meant by angels and spirits? We usually interpret these to be a reference to angelic beings, of both the good and bad sort. The problem with this interpretation is that the Sadducees believed in angelic beings. Did Luke make a mistake? No.


Wright points out that “angel” and “spirit” were terms used in that day to refer to the immaterial part of man that survived death. Think back to Acts 12:14-16. Peter was imprisoned. Believers had gathered at Mary’s house to pray (presumably for him). When Peter was miraculously delivered from the prison, and showed up at Mary’s door, in disbelief the people said it was not Peter, but his “angel.” Apparently they thought he had been executed, and his spirit had come to visit them.


When Luke says the Sadducees deny the resurrection, angels and spirits, what he means is that they deny both an intermediate state, and a final resurrection of the body. The Sadducees were anthropological materialists, if you will. They believed the body and soul terminated at death.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »