The Phantom

Have I been a 'bad boy' with all my debating lately on my websites? I think not, but I expressed the desire by email to a few supporters for a few of us to back off from such pursuits for awhile, while at the same time continuing to support our reciprocal links and commenters. I of course do not have control over outside commenters other than deciding whether or not to publish their comments. I cannot guarantee how I will need to approach a comment, but this article expresses my current mood and attitude. I debate at times for the sake of learning about the truth and defending the truth. I am more concerned with defending Biblical, Reformed theology, philosophically, than I am being an apologist for a Reformed, Calvinist position. I have never claimed to be a Calvinist.

However, many of my positions are Reformed and so after many years of intense study I am comfortable stating I am within the Reformed theological camp. Those of other views, Christian or non-Christian, liberal Christian or conservative Christian, are welcome. But, I do not want to argue on and on in circles. At times we need to simply state a case and then leave it at that, as we have made our best points and there is no point repeating them over and over. In other words, there is no point beating an opponent over the head. I am interested in loving others as much as I love myself (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 10, Galatians 5). I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. 

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments. 

From: logical fallacy 

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. 

I will not, with God's help attack someone personally within the context of a debate or discussion in order to strengthen my case, because it does not work. I also will not accept this treatment in return. This is not to conclude that it is ad hominem to state that someone is 'this or is that' if it is accurate and out of the context of a debate and discussion. I can avoid the use of ad hominem against someone in a debate that is being 'a this or that', but I simply do not use a personal attack within the argument. So, yes, sometimes someone is being a jerk, but I do not use that as a form of argumentation.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

   

Autumn

Infinite revisited

Belgium, (photo from trekearth.com)

My Infinite article was first presented in 2006, but I did not receive many comments. I now have more readers and wish to present this article with some slight changes.

Brian Davies writes that the English word infinity comes from the Latin word infinitas, meaning boundless or endless. Davies (1999: 298). Davies states that some have ascribed the term infinity with various degrees of understanding of substance, time, space, the universe, numbers, and classes. Davies (1999: 298). Davies mentions that many philosophers have dealt with the issue of infinity through the centuries, but Biblically speaking there is not a doctrine of infinity. Davies (1999: 298). I can give Davies this point if by this he means that within Scripture there is not a specific explanation of a doctrine of the infinite God. Davies writes that God's infinity is viewed as marking his perfection, and that God alone is understood as infinite. As God is uncreated and uncreatable, he is infinite. Davies (1999: 298). God would not be limited by time and space, and so contrary to the previous comments time and space would be considered finite and not infinite within traditional Christian thought. God would be superior to all creatures and would be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Davies (1999: 298).

Davies notes that process theology has postulated that God's personal nature means that he can change as he works within created time. Davies (1999: 228). Process theology reasons that God possibly develops in personality as he deals with his created beings. Davies (1999: 228).

I would state that if God's nature can be changed and develop within time, then he is not infinite, but rather the most advanced finite being in existence. A finite being that is beyond matter, perhaps. I reject process theology's notion of a finite God, for at least the following reasons.

If God is not infinite then he cannot posses any infinite attributes, and this would prohibit God from being eternal. To be eternal would mean that one has unlimited life. If God is not eternal, then how did God come to exist? If there was a God that created God and so on, we have the problem of vicious regress in which we are stuck with an infinite regressions of Gods. If it is suggested at some point the regression ends, why cannot we simply reject the vicious regress and state that the Biblical God, or a God, is the only God? To state that God simply came to exist from nothing does not seem reasonable, and the suggestion answers nothing. If God is merely finite, then we have a problem of determining the first cause.

Many scientists and scholars reason that the universe is 15-20 billion years old, and believe in a 'Big Bang Theory'. Whether the universe is billions, millions, or thousands of years is not the primary concern of this article, but with a big bang model or like, the universe in agreement with the Bible, is not eternal. Billions, millions, or thousands of years is more time than any of us can comprehend and may be considered perhaps from a human perspective, virtual eternity, but is not actual eternity, and therefore is not infinite. Since God created matter in Genesis, Chapter 1, it is clear that nothing within the material, physical realm existed prior to creation. This would leave us with God, and perhaps the angelic beings prior to the existence of matter. It can be deduced that angels cannot be infinite in nature, because if they were limitless in nature they would themselves be God. We cannot have two or more limitless beings by definition as they simply would be an aspect of one infinite, eternal God of one substance. Thiessen notes angels are not eternal although the Bible does not state when they were created. Thiessen (1956: 191). Thiessen thinks angels may have been formed at the Genesis 1 creation or just after. Thiessen (1956: 191). I would of course have no definite idea, but think that angels were created within time. I do not reason that angels existed in a timeless state with God. I would deduce that even non-physical finite spiritual beings must exist within time, although not necessarily within physical matter, in order to process thought patterns, as God alone is all-knowing and does not need to process thoughts within time. I would conclude this point by stating that God alone existed before the creation of matter and angelic beings.

Millard J. Erickson discusses the Scriptural concept of God's existence in contrast to that of his creation. In Acts 17: 24-25 it states that God does not dwell physically, but is the creator of everything. Erickson notes that God is called the first and last in Isaiah 44: 6, and the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13. The idea being shown here is that God has always existed and will always exist. Erickson (1994: 273-274).

As pointed out previously, before the creation of matter and the angels nothing else would have existed. There is also the idea put across in Scripture that God is immutable and does not change in his nature. Malachi 3:6 states that the Lord does not change and Erickson views this as referring to God’s nature and attributes.

It can be stated here that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic as the creator is totally independent in nature from his creation. Erickson (1994: 303). God existed before the creation of matter as a purely spiritual being, and was not dependent on matter or anything other than himself for existence. God is not equal to his creation or matter, he is beyond it. God is also not to be considered in a panentheistic context as although the creator does sustain all of his creation through his power he is not the vital force within all he creates. Erickson (1994: 307). God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my view a traditional Christian understanding would be that God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. If God is the vital force within a tree, it could be argued that the tree’s essence is infinite and eternal and I think that this would be error. In contrast, I think that God sustains and energizes all of his creation while allowing it existence separate from his own. The tree remains finite although it is sustained by God. When the tree dies so does its essence, although the related finite matter continues to exist.

God and not his creation, is alone infinite.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Infinity’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.



I do not want to dwell on graphic evils, but the extreme case below can serve as an example of why certain religious views need to be strongly intellectually challenged at times.

From Sky News

satanists

Eight suspected Satanists have been arrested in Russia for allegedly stabbing to death and eating the body parts of four teenagers, reports claim.

Russian police officers have 'arrested eight'

The four victims were lured one by one to a country cottage in the region of Yaroslavl on the Volga River, a popular Russian tabloid said.

The teenagers were then stabbed "666 times" each, as part of a Satanic ritual, the daily said, quoting investigators.

The victims were allegedly forced to get drunk before being stabbed and dismembered.

Their killers then lit a bonfire under a tree near the cottage where they cooked and ate their victims' body parts, the report claimed.

Hair from the victims was apparently found in the embers of the bonfire.

The report also quoted interrogations with the suspects and said police had intercepted their phone calls following the killings.

The victims - three girls and one boy - were all aged between 16 and 17 and belonged to local "goth circles", a subculture that is very popular in provincial Russia, Komsomolskaya Pravda said.

The religious group that wakes me up in the morning

Greece: trekeath.com

The religious group that wakes me up in the morning

Yes, wakes is a proper English word.

wakes

From the rate my blog vote in the previous article. The winners:

Wunderbar 4

This blog is better than running from Chuck Norris 4 (From Rick)

This post is dedicated to the friendly Jehovah's Witnesses that leave a message on my phone at least once a month. They call in the morning and wake me up temporarily from my CPAP assisted sleep. They invite me to a Bible study. I had a phone discussion with a nice lady representative one day and turned the tables on her and gave her a short lecture on why her version of a free will theodicy does not work. She invited me to meet with her elders and I assured her that although I would be nice, I was quite busy and in the end her elders would not want me to be part of their church.

I am not a prophet, but I would be being willing to predict that event. I am not a gambler, but I am willing to bet on that taking place.

I hope the Jehovah's Witnesses are calling some Latter-day Saints and leave a message on their answering machines. The Jehovah's Witnesses should call some local LDS churches and then the Mormons can send some missionaries down to the Kingdom Hall and talk shop.

But first...some short humour.

Jeff Jenkins from Thoughts and Theology

Presents in my links this film several weeks ago. I did not produce the video and I am not vouching 100% for its historical accuracy, but it does present an interesting historical review of an important non-Christian religious movement.

The video is produced by this group:

Good News

Walter Martin was one of the top scholars in regard to the Jehovah's Witnesses as a non-Christian movement.

He writes that Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The name Jehovah's Witnesses was taken in 1931 to differentiate from the Watchtower organization run by Russell's successor Judge Rutherford. Martin (1965)(1997: 79). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was founded in 1896. Martin (1965)(1997: 80). Russell had been teaching previously.

John Ankerberg and John Weldon state Charles Taze Russell's dates of birth and death (1852-1916). The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only organization in the world through which Jehovah God operates and supplies a true Biblical interpretation. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 127).

Jesus described his church in Matthew 16: 18. In Acts, Peter initially was the primary Apostle, but the primary focus soon moved to Paul in the latter part of Acts. Paul also wrote and/or had scribes write more books of the New Testament than did Peter.

The true church Jesus described in Matthew 16: 18 is the Church of Jesus Christ. In the early stages it could be stated that both Peter and Paul led aspects of the early Church, which was one Church. Today there is still one Church that is led through various persons and denominations. Where there is essential Christian doctrine taught, believed and lived with persons indwelled with the Holy Spirit, there is the Church of Jesus Christ. There is sin and error present in the Church in this present realm, and there is no one faultless Christian leader or faultless Christian movement as sin influences all.

There is also no one true denomination at the expense of all others. There may possibly be one Christian denomination with better Biblical and systematic theology than others, but this does not make it the true Church and all the others false.

From:http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html
The Deity of Jesus Christ

Throughout the entire content of inspired Scripture the fact of Christ’s identity is clearly taught. He is revealed as Jehovah God in human form (Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; Isaiah 7:14; John 1:14; 8:58; 17:5 [cf. Exodus 3:14]; Hebrews 1:3; Philippians 2:11; Colossians 2:9; and Revelation 1:8, 17–18; etc.). The deity of Jesus Christ is one of the cornerstones of Christianity, and as such has been attacked more vigorously throughout the ages than any other single doctrine of the Christian faith. Adhering to the old Arian heresy of the fourth century A.D., which Athanasius the great church Father refuted in his famous essay “On the Incarnation of the Word,” many individuals and all cults steadfastly deny the equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father, and, consequently, the Triune deity. Jehovah’s Witnesses, as has been observed, are no exception to this infamous rule. However, the testimony of the Scriptures stands sure, and the above mentioned references alone put to silence forever this blasphemous heresy, which in the power of Satan himself deceives many with its “deceitful handling of the Word of God.”

The deity of Christ, then, is a prime answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses, for if the Trinity is a reality, which it is, if Jesus and Jehovah are “One” and the same, then the whole framework of the cult collapses into a heap of shattered, disconnected doctrines incapable of even a semblance of congruity. We will now consider the verses in question, and their bearing on the matter.

Refutation of Watchtower Theology in Regard to the Triune Deity

One of the greatest doctrines of the Scriptures is that of the Triune Godhead or the nature of God himself. To say that this doctrine is a “mystery” is indeed inconclusive, and no informed minister would explain the implications of the doctrine in such abstract terms. Jehovah’s Witnesses accuse “the clergy” of doing just that, however, and it is unfortunate to note that they are, as usual, guilty of misstatement in the presentation of the facts and even in their definition of what Christian clergymen believe the Deity to be.

First of all, Christian ministers and Christian laypersons do not believe that there are “three gods in one” (Let God Be True, 100), but do believe that there are three Persons all of the same Substance—coequal, coexistent, and coeternal. There is ample ground for this belief in the Scriptures, where plurality in the Godhead is very strongly intimated if not expressly declared.

The Resurrection of Christ

Jehovah’s Witnesses, as has been observed, deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and claim instead that He was raised a “divine spirit being” or as an “invisible spirit creature.” They answer the objection that He appeared in human form by asserting that He simply took human forms as He needed them, which enabled Him to be seen, for as the Logos He would have been invisible to the human eye. In short, Jesus did not appear in the same form that hung upon the cross since that body either “dissolved into gases or is preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love”. This, in spite of Paul’s direct refutation in 1 Timothy 2:5, where he calls “the man Christ Jesus” our only mediator—some thirty years after the resurrection!

The Scriptures, however, tell a completely different story, as will be evident when their testimony is considered. Christ himself prophesied His own bodily resurrection, and John tells us “He spake of the temple of His body” (John 2:21).

What can be understood from reading the material from the site where Martin's family presents portions of his work, and the Martin and Ankerberg and Weldon texts are that Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the resurrection of Christ. There are other errors as well.

For one to truly know God he or she must believe in the deity of Christ. Christ as infinite God and perfect finite man, outlasted human finite sin, covered sins and paid the penalty for the sins of fallen humanity. This is the atonement.

To accept Christ as deity, the Holy Spirit as deity (Matthew 28: 19-20, Acts 5) and the Father as deity is to understand the New Testament nature of God is basic terms.

One God, one nature and substance with three distinctions.

To accept the Biblical resurrection of Christ, is to accept the predictive resurrection teaching of Christ in John 2: 19, descriptions of Jesus resurrection in the Gospels, and to accept Paul's teaching on resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Note, I stated the Gospels, but even if the ending of Mark (16: 9-20) is viewed as questionable because it is missing in two of the oldest minority Alexandrian texts, Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Sin.), Mark 16: 1-8, makes it clear Christ was risen. The ending is present in the majority Byzantine texts, and it is possible that Mark did indeed write it or it was written by another inspired scribe.

As noted in comments the description of the minority Alexandrian texts and majority Byzantine texts is in general terms, please see comments.

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

MARTIN, WALTER (1965)(1997) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.

Kairos and Kenosis

Location? It reminds me of the Oregon/California coast.

καιρὸς

Kairos according to Alan Richardson is an important word in the Greek New Testament and means an appointed time in the purpose of God, for example in Mark 1:15 the kairos is fulfilled. Richardson (1999: 316).

Browning points out that kairos is an opportune time or moment for a decision, the term chronos is used for a length of time, and aion, in broad terms is era and makes the distinction between the present era, age, and coming era. Browning (1997: 371).

chronos/χρόνος
aion/αἰών

Mark 1: 15

Bible Hub

καιρὸς is time noun, nominative, masculine, singular

Parsing Nominative Singular Masculine 

Greek

καιρὸς: Noun a point or fixed period of time; season; the right time; due measure or fitness; advantage

κενόω

ἐκένωσεν

Kenosis is Greek for 'self-emptying'. Browning (1997: 215). George Newlands mentions that Paul uses this concept in Philippians 2:7, as Christ emptied himself regarding the incarnation. Kenotic love is in God's being, expressed through the divine self-giving of Christ, as God's love overcomes evil through the death and resurrection of Christ. Newlands (1999: 316). S.M. Smith notes that Kenotic theology focuses on the person of Christ in terms of some form of self-limitation by the preexistent Son in his becoming human. Smith (1996: 601). It theoretically looks at the incarnation in history.

Thiessen writes that Kenotic theologians have incorrectly concluded that Christ emptied himself of his divine attributes, and instead surrendered the independent use of some of his attributes. Thiessen (1956: 295-296). Thiessen sees Christ as using these powers as the Father granted them. He gave up glory and became a servant. Thiessen (1956: 296). Christ gave up glory as a servant, but could not, and did not give up being God. Erickson suggests that it was equality with God and not the form of God that Christ gave up. He still shared the same nature as the Father but subordinated himself to the Father in the incarnation. These limitations were in no way due to a loss of divine attributes, but due to the addition of human ones. Erickson (1994: 735).

Christ was fully human.

Christ subjected himself to the Father

Christ was fully God.

God the Son's (divine) attributes cannot change.

Philippians 2: 7

From:

Bible Hub 

ἐκένωσεν: Verb to empty out, emptied

Parsing 3rd Person Aorist Active Indicative Singular

Bible Hub

κενόω: Root word, to empty out, emptied

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

NEWLANDS, GEORGE (1999) ‘Kenosis’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Kairos’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SMITH, S.M. (1996) ‘Kenosis, Kenotic Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLEASE RATE MY BLOG (As seen on other blogs)

Please place the choice in comments, and I will change the amounts.

Votes are allowed per comment.

1. Wunderbar 4
2. Fatastic 1
3. Extraextraordinary 04. Better than Obomba and McCain's fries 1
5. Masterpiece Theatre of Dreams 0
6. Greaaat! 2
7. There are no mistakes, only happy accidents, there 1
8. Better than McDonald's 2
9. I don't believe, but even I like your blog 0
10. The best theology blog in this apartment building 0
11. Scrumdilicious!
12. Good to the last drop
13. Better than the free 90 minute Tom Vu 'semina' 1
14. This blog is better than running from Chuck Norris 4 (From Rick)
15. This blog is better than getting pushed on stage during a Todd Bentley meeting! 2 (From GGM)
16. Outstanding 2 (From Robert)