I just wanted to let all the readers know that, after some discussion, the four of us have decided to move the Well of Questions over to WordPress.
The interface there is far more professional and readable, and there is a good community of bloggers developing on WordPress that we just want to be part of. We'll continue to bring you the same content we always have, so please stop by!
The new url is http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com
We look forward to continuing the conversation!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Moving Notice!!!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Conditional Election in the Incarnation
Defenders of unconditional election will generally deny that there are any examples of God choosing a person based on qualities internal to them in Scripture. Many of them will also assert that if God depends on human decisions (if He "waits on man to respond" as it is sometimes said) to accomplish salvation, then this robs God of his glory and sovereignty, because its really man's choice that counts, not God's.
Luke 1:28-30
"Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with you." But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God..."
If defenders of unconditional election are correct about these two ideas, then why does it seem that in Christ's incarnate economy, the very foundation of our salvation, God elects Mary based on a faith that she chooses to have? Notice the lack of "God elected you to accept grace" language; rather, its "God elected you because you accepted grace". And if God conditionally elected in something as great as the Incarnation, why not think God conditionally elects in personal election of believers unto salvation?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Argument from Rationality for Absolute Personal Identity
I have seen this argument used before elsewhere, but I thought I would post it here when I was reminded of it while reading Andrea Christofidou's paper "God, Physicalism, and the Totality of Facts" (Philosophy, vol. 82, October 2007, pp 515-542). I think its fairly well-known, but I want to expose people who haven't heard of it before. It attempts to show that a view of personal identity as an absolute and irreducible non-physical quality that defines us (as opposed to something like memory grounding personal identity) is a precondition for us to be rational.
The Argument from Rationality:
1. In order for me to be rational in forming my beliefs, I must be able to consider all the premises of an argument and its conclusion.
2. In order to be able to consider all of the premises of an argument and its conclusion, I must exist from the moment I consider the first premise to the moment I assent to or reject the conclusion.
3. If I exist from the moment I consider the first premise to the moment I assent to or reject the conclusion, then I am absolutely the same particular individual across a stretch of time.
C. Therefore, in order for me to be rational in forming my beliefs, I must be absolutely the same particular individual across a stretch of time.
Insofar as the defender of memory views of personal identity and other views aren't willing to give up their claim to rationality (lest we dismiss them and ignore them) it seems they must agree that we are absolutely the same particular individual across a stretch of time. I think the absolutist view of personal identity causes problems for physicalism as I have argued elsewhere. I wonder how a defender of a non-absolute view of personal identity would defend against this?
Veneration of Mary in Scripture
The Virgin Mary is honored highly in Scripture:
Luke 1:28-30
Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with you... for you have found favor with God.
Luke 1:41-3
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken her by the Lord.
Luke 1:48
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed...
Exodus 20:12
Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
John 2:1-7
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward." So they took it.
1 Corinthians 11:1
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
In Luke, the angel Gabriel--a being of power and wisdom far exceeding that of ourselves--praises Mary and singles her out among all women as uniquely full of God's presence and life. She found favor with God in a way that no other human being had ever found favor before her--through a paradigmatic, unwavering faith in Christ. He gives her the title "full of grace"--a name used elsewhere only of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). God's act of recognizing Mary by incarnating himself in her is an honor that not even the highest order of angels could even claim.
Then Elizabeth is inspired by the Holy Spirit and praises Mary and exclaims that she is uniquely blessed among women. Note that this precedes her blessing of the Incarnate One who she bears in her womb. It is the sound of Mary's greeting that brings John the Baptist to leap joyously. And Mary's faith is commended a second time by an agent of God as uniquely valuable.
To top it all off, Mary is to be blessed by every generation. To say this about oneself in the context of divinely-inspired prophecy about the people of God implies that there is a kind of obligation we have to acknowledge the blessedness of the Virgin Mary.
Think also of how Christ himself honors Mary, granting her requests at the wedding, even going out of his way to command servants multiple times. Christ is simply obeying the ten commandments like we would expect the representative Jew to do in the process of fulfilling the law--he is honoring his mother. As imitators of Christ, we must imitate the honor that he gives to both his heavenly Father and his blessed Mother. She is truly "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim"--the greatest servant of her Son, who showed the greatest faith and cooperation with grace of any mere human who ever lived.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Inclusivism (5): The Gentiles in Romans 2:12-16
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."
Apparently the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, can follow the law by nature (would you call such a nature totally depraved?), and their conflicting thoughts may EXCUSE them on the day when God judges the hearts of men by Jesus Christ. Hmmmm...
Mary as Intercessor in Scripture
There are two places where Mary acts as intercessor in Scripture:
John 2:1-6
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece...
Acts 1:12-14
Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
In the Gospel of John, there are numerous events that are anticipatory of the new creation. This is clearly one such case: note the changing of water into wine, the fact that this is a marriage feast (Christ and the Church), and the manifestation of Jesus' glory. Mary's intercession comes in close association with the world to come.
In Acts, the scene is in an upper room, paralleling the Eucharist in Luke. This scene is a manifestation of the unity, authority, and glory of the Church, right after Jesus' departure at a time of crucial decision and determination. Mary participates in the prayer that begins the first and greatest evangelistic outreach.
We already know that those in heaven are interceding for us (Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4). We already know that they are aware of what is happening on earth (Rev.6:9-11). The Saints have powers that are far beyond our present earthly abilities (Mat 17:1-3). It is okay to pray to (=ask of) angels that they would praise God with us (Psalms 103:20-21). If Mary's intercession is so intimately connected with the new creation and the inbreaking of the kingdom of God (both of which we participate in) why not pray to her?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Inclusivism (4): The Example of Cornelius
Up until now, my posts on inclusivism have been aimed at establishing a principle that lies behind inclusivist theology, and countering an argument for exclusivism. Now we come to a positive argument for inclusivism. Any theology of the unevangelized must deal with the example of Cornelius. This example is especially important, because of what Peter says he has learned when he meets with Cornelius:
Acts 10:34-35
"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
What is implicit in Peter's words is a recognition of Cornelius as a paradigmn case. Whatever is true about those outside of the Church, and specifically the unevangelized, is embodied by the example of Cornelius. If Cornelius was saved only when he was a Christian, then we are to understand Peter's words as implying that God accepts those who fear God and work righteousness in their act of becoming Christians via evangelization. If, on the other hand, Cornelius was saved prior to evangelization, then we are to understand Peter's words as implying that God accepts those who fear God and work righteousness prior to their actually becoming Christians. Clearly this is an important issue.
I will argue that Cornelius was saved prior to evangelization. This argument borrows heavily from John Sanders' "No Other Name". Here are the relevant verses:
Acts 10:1-2
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God...
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God...
From these passages it can be argued:
1. If exclusivism is true, then one must intellectually assent to the propositions that constitute the Gospel in order to be saved.
2. Cornelius was a God-fearer. ("one that feared God")
3. God-fearers are not Christians, but converts to Judaism from Gentile ethnic origins.
4. Those who are not Christians do not assent to the propositions that constitute the Gospel.
5. Cornelius pleased God prior to becoming a Christian. ("thine prayers and thine offerings have gone up as a memorial before God")
6. If one lacks faith, one cannot please God. ("without faith it is impossible to please God")
7. Therefore those who please God have faith.
8. Therefore Cornelius had faith prior to becoming a Christian.
9. Those who have faith are being saved. ("For by grace are ye saved through faith")
10. Therefore Cornelius was being saved prior to becoming a Christian.
Therefore exclusivism is false.
I will now consider two possible responses to this argument, and attempt to show that they do not succeed.
I. Cornelius was not saved before Peter came.
The typical response to the inclusivist argument is that Cornelius was not saved until Peter arrived. This is based off of Acts 11:14-3 ("Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved."). The objection is thus a denial of premise 8. In one sense the inclusivist can agree that Cornelius was not saved until Peter came. He did not have the fullness of salvation that comes through the Messiah. But in another sense, it seems Peter was saved beforehand; otherwise, it is hard to explain how he could please God and hence apparently have faith. As Sanders points out in No Other Name (p.66), the meaning of "salvation" is not very tight and restricted in Acts: it can refer to physical healing (14:9), making whole (4:9), deliverance from a storm (27:20), and a proper relationship with God (15:1) in addition to meaning eternal life through Jesus Christ. Arguing from this verse that Cornelius would have gone to hell if he had died before Peter came assumes a view of salvation as a one-time, singular event; and it ignores the data about Cornelius being devout and apparently having faith.
II. Cornelius was saved before Peter came, but that is because he was a Christian.
This response attacks premise 3., that God-fearers are not Christians. The implication is that the example would not support inclusivism because Cornelius would be a Christian, and hence evangelized, before Peter came. Though I have only heard this suggested by one person, and have never heard a scholar support this view, it does offer some arguments that are worth looking at.
Argument (A) There was no clear cut Jew/Christian distinction during the time of Acts; hence there's no reason to think that being a God-fearer did not imply being a Christian.
Argument (B) Cornelius seems to have heard of Jesus before Peter shows up--
10:36-37
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Therefore it seems that he could have been a Christian before Peter showed up.
Here are possible inclusivist replies:
(A) A close analysis of the words used to describe Cornelius seems necessary to see whether this suggestion undercuts the case for inclusivism from the language of "God-fearer". The words "eulabes" and "eusebēs" denote "devout man". "Eulabes" is used of Christians in Acts 8:2, of Jews and proselytes in Acts 2:3, and of Jews in Luke 2:25. "Eusebēs" is used of Cornelius in Acts 10:2, of Cornelius' soldier in Acts 10:7, and of the Christian Ananias in Acts 22:12. Throughout the book of Acts, the Christians are generally called "the disciples of the Lord". It would be a radical departure from the content of the rest of the book to introduce Cornelius, a Christian, as a "God-fearer". The phrase for "God fearer" is "phobeo theos". It comes up in Acts 13:16, 13:26, and in these examples clearly indicates a non-Christian non-Hebrew who has converted to Judaism. It is unprecedented as indicating a Christian.
The problem that comes up is this: If "eusebēs" is used of Cornelius and his servant, and the only other place it is used is to signify a Christian, then it seems that "eusebēs" could signify that Cornelius is a Christian. But if "phobeo theos" is only used of non-Christians, and it is used of Cornelius, then it seems like it could signify that Cornelius is not a Christian. Admittedly, this leaves an ambiguity about Cornelius, so it does not seem that the specific words predicated of him ("God-fearer" seems to imply no, "devout" seems to imply yes) can decide whether or not he was a Christian. Admittedly it is peculiar that he is never referred to as a believer or a disciple; but the proponent of the "Cornelius Christian" theory can counter by suggesting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence with respect to his being a disciple. Overall, there is no overriding argument here that Cornelius was a Christian, but the argument that he wasn't a Christion based on the label "God-fearer" seems to be nullified. If there is an adequate reason to think that Cornelius was a non-Christian, it will have to be located elsewhere.
(B) It is true that Cornelius seems to have been aware of the existence and reputation of Jesus before Peter came to him. But to say that he was already Christian makes the narrative very awkward.
If Cornelius was already a Christian, what is the purpose of Peter's apparent proclamation of the Gospel? Peter's preaching takes the same form as other evangelistic presentations: [1] opening that connects with audience (v34-5), [2] Christological kerygma (v36-41), [3] Scriptural proofs (v43), and [4] summons to repent (v43). It seems, for all intents and purposes, to be a presentation of Christianity for the hearers, and an offer to exercise faith in Christ.
If Cornelius was already a Christian, why does he seem to be so confused about, for instance, the fact that Peter cannot directly serve as broker of God's patronage (25-6)? This seems like a huge problem if he really was already a Christian. When this is coupled with the lack of mention of Cornelius' connection with any kind of Church, and the absence of any reference to him as a disciple or believer, the fact that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" doesn't seem to be a strong enough response to withstand the inclusivist's suspicions. Much of the data that we would expect to see if Cornelius was a Christian is lacking.
Finally, how can we make sense of the fact that Peter's explanation of the angel's message to Cornelius says "Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved"? (11:13-4) The way Peter states this implies a lack of awareness of the content of the message. Whatever may be true about Cornelius knowing something of Jesus before Peter arrives, Peter's message apparently imparted a new familiarity with Jesus that can be called "salvation". This, above other considerations, makes it highly implausible that Cornelius was a Christian before Peter came. So instead of premises 2-3, we can insert the following:
2. It is unlikely that Peter would preach the Gospel to Cornelius; that Cornelius would bow to him the way he does; that he would not be identified with membership in the Church; that he would not be identified as a believer/disciple; and that Peter would repeat the angel's message to Cornelius as saying that he needs to get Peter to save him if Cornelius were already a Christian.
3. Therefore Cornelius was probably not a Christian when Peter came.
Conclusion:
Because it is most plausible that Cornelius was both saved (in a very real, yet incomplete sense--he would have had eternal life if he died) and not a Christian (didn't believe the Gospel) prior to Peter's presentation of Christianity, it seems that he supports the inclusivist view of salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
