The A-Team Blog

The Dark Side Of Divine Command Theory?: A Response To Erik Wielenberg - Part Two

David N — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:01:30 -0700

    In response to Wielenberg's first argument, it seems perfectly reasonable for the Theist to assert two propositions. The first being that it is impossible for God’s character to be different than it is, and the second being that it is impossible to actually change the nature of moral perfection, as the evil contestant does in Wielenberg’s story. The second claim rests on the first. God’s character simply is the definition of moral perfection, and if His character cannot change, than neither can moral perfection. But to the first proposition Wielenberg might ask why God’s character cannot change. The response is simple, because if it did, then He would cease to be morally perfect, and thus cease to be God. At this point, Wielenberg might accuse the Theist of a contradiction. If God’s character cannot change without ceasing to be morally perfect, then isn’t there some outside standard to which we are holding God’s character? To this the Theist may reply that God’s character is indeed the only standard of perfection, and that all things are either good or bad based on their relation to Him alone, but that His character, being what it is, cannot be otherwise. It is simply a brute fact of the universe. For God is the ground of all being, the source and foundation for all reality. He simply is. And he could not be otherwise. If Wielenberg still wishes to object to this claim, then the Theist can quickly remind him that this is precisely what he wishes his reader to believe about the brute moral facts of the universe. Indeed, this is the thesis of his book! Moral facts such as “it is wrong to torture babies for fun” are, according to Wielenberg, real moral entities that exist and simply cannot be otherwise. But as far I can tell, there is no reason to believe that brute moral facts cannot change and not believe that God’s character cannot change. Thus, for Wielenberg to reject the Dependency Thesis for this reason would also be for him to reject his own moral theory.

    For the second argument, I believe that two possible responses are open to the Theist. First, it can be argued that since a thing’s nature is given to it by God, it is still possible for something to be either good or evil by virtue of its nature, even though God indirectly made it so. Taking the example of falling in love, a Theist might say that falling in love is most certainly an instance of intrinsic good, its very nature is simply and completely good, but that because its nature was given to it by God, it is ultimately God that has, in a sense, “declared” it to be what it is. It sounds to me as though Wielenberg’s argument is actually saying, “nothing can be good in virtue of its nature because God gave it its nature.” But of course that doesn’t follow. What Wielenberg is really attacking is the notion that falling in love is not good for its own sake, but that it is good because God told us so. What he overlooks is the simple solution that God “told us so” by giving it a nature that was either good or evil.

    However, there is another response that seems perfectly reasonable to me, namely that the Theist simply accepts that nothing actually is intrinsically good or evil apart from God. Why is suffering evil? Because God doesn’t want his creatures to suffer. Why is falling in love good? Because God wants us to be happy, and in part because it facilitates the creation of families, children, and society. Wielenberg is relying on the unshakable intuition that pain is evil in and of itself. It is better to keep this obvious truth than to accept a theory that rejects it. But isn’t it just as likely that the unshakable intuition in question is merely that pain is evil, leaving entirely open the question of why or how it is evil? This seems more plausible to me.

The Dark Side Of Divine Command Theory?: A Response To Erik Wielenberg

David N — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:06:12 -0700

   In Chapter Two of Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe, Erik Wielenberg introduces two theses that he believes implicitly support Divine Command Theory. The first is the Control Thesis which states that “every logically consistent ethical claim, E, is such that God could make E true.”   The second is the Dependency Thesis which states that “every true ethical claim is true in virtue of some act of will on the part of God.” Essentially, the great difference between these two is that in the former God creates ethics (by divine fiat we might say), while in the later ethics is based upon and originates from God’s nature or character. From this, Wielenberg distinguishes between two forms of Divine Command Theory. The first or “strong” form accepts both the Control and Dependency Thesis, while the “weak” form accepts only the Dependency Thesis.

   It is important to consider Wielenberg’s objection to the strong form of Divine Command Theory first (which is essentially an objection to the Control Thesis), since it will play a role in his objection to the weak form. He objects to the strong form by way of an illustration.   He asks us to imagine a competition in which the prize is omnipotence. One contestant is a very good person, while the other is very evil. Suppose, he says, that the evil person wins the contest and gains omnipotence. According to the Control Thesis, the evil contestant can now make it such that all of the evil acts he intends to perform (mass slaughter of innocents, torture, etc.) are actually very good. Moreover, he can make it such he is now a morally perfect being, not by changing himself, but by changing the nature of moral perfection. Thus, in the end, evil becomes good and the killing and torture of innocent people is morally commendable. Wielenberg relies primarily on intuition to argue that “there is simply no amount of power that would enable a being to make that true.”   He further argues that “This story seems to get things backwards by making morality subject to power.” Fair enough. Our moral intuitions certainly do seem to suggest to us that no amount of power could make such atrocities good. We want to argue, especially as Christians, that morality is somehow objective and fixed, and that it could not be otherwise. At least on the surface, Wielenberg’s argument seems to offer convincing reasons to reject the Control Thesis on just such grounds. And so, for the sake of argument, we will grant him his conclusion.

   Now Wielenberg turns his philosophical gun on the weak form of Divine Command Theory, specifically on the Dependency Thesis, which he states as follows, “It is still divine willing that determines which ethical claims are true, but the scope of divine willing is limited by the divine character.”   In other words, God still retains the prerogative to say what things humans can and cannot do in certain times and places, but contra the Control Thesis He cannot command simply anything, but can only command those things which are in accordance with His own character, which sets the standard of moral goodness. Wielenberg proposes three objections to this thesis. First, he suggests that “implicit in the proposal is the notion that God has the power to make any logically consistent ethical claim true.” In the weak claim, God’s character prevents Him from making evil things good, but Wielenberg seems to be suggesting that the Control Thesis still manages to slip in the back door, and that we are left with the same problem, just moved back a step. If it were the case that God’s character turned out to be like the evil contestant in Wielenberg’s imaginary story, then even on the Dependency Thesis alone it would still be conceivable that God could make the slaughter of innocents a morally good thing. But Wielenberg has already refuted such a notion.

    Wielenberg’s second objection to the Dependency Thesis is even stronger. He argues that an implication of the Dependency Thesis is that nothing is intrinsically good or evil. He says, “If an act of will on the part of God bestows value on something distinct from God, that value cannot be intrinsic.”   By intrinsic value he means that a thing is valuable only in virtue of its nature. As an example of an intrinsic evil, he suggests pain. Pain is just bad, in and of itself, without reference to anything else. Conversely, falling in love is intrinsically good; it is simply good for its own sake. Following Chisholm, who argues that any theory of epistemology that doesn’t allow for obvious instances of knowledge should be rejected, Wielenberg suggests that any theory of morality that rejects something as obvious as the fact that some things are intrinsically good or evil should also be rejected.

    What might the Christian say in response to these arguments? Tune in tomorrow!

Christ-Like Leadership And The Gender Debate

David N — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:31:25 -0700

When it comes to the gender debate, we must always keep sight of the Biblical picture of leadership. Egalitarians frequently argue that our focus should not be on claiming our rights to authority over others, and I couldn’t agree more. They argue that we should focus on serving one another, and again I couldn’t agree more. But something that egalitarians would do well to remember is that true Biblical leadership is nothing more than the ultimate form of servanthood.

Christ has all power and authority and dominion over all the earth, and yet He humbled himself more than any human being possibly could. The same is true for those who are called to lead in Christ’s church. The powerful description of the way in which a husband is to love his wife (Ephesians 5) does not reveal some sort of egalitarian model of marriage, rather it reinforces the Biblical picture of true, Christ-like leadership. For a husband to take on the role of head of his wife is for him to give up his own desires for her sake. It is for him to always put her first, to always think of her before himself, and ultimately to give up his whole life for her (figuratively as well as in reality). This is not a command to “mutually submit.” Far from it. This is a command to be a true Christian leader, as Christ was, and is, and ever will be.

A Two-Way Street: Free Will, Suffering & The Glory Of God

David N — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:31:35 -0700

I was on facebook the other day, taking a silly quiz to see how "Reformed" I was. As it turns out, the quiz was designed by Presbyterians, so it wasn't very accurate.

One person, obviously irked by Reformation theology, left a rather cynical comment on the quiz's wall, along the lines of "child prostitution brings glory to God." This person was attempting to raise the objection that, because the Reformed believe quite strongly that every event and every moment of history is ordained by God, for the purpose of glorifying Himself, they are left with the (supposedly) absurd conclusion that the most vile and wicked acts imaginable are somehow God-glorifying. Child prostitution exists, according to this line of thought, because God in some sense wanted it to.

I just want to say two things in response to this. The first is that, as is often the case, this is a stilted charicature of Reformed theology. No sane Reformed person actually believes that God possesses a disposition such that He actually delights in suffering. There is a very real sense in which God does not want anyone to suffer, in this life or in the next. He justly hates evil in every possible sense. You'll also be hard pressed to find a Reformed theologian who will claim that the Fall (and the subsequent existence of sin and evil in the world) was somehow necessary. What you will find is a commitment to the idea that, even though evil things are evil in and of themselves, and should not be considered good in any way, it must be the case that they exist for the good, or God would not allow them. I think Reformed and non-Reformed alike should be able to agree on this. The only other option is that God does not work all things for good (even if only the best good possible).

The second point is very important, and too often overlooked. Typically it is said that Reformed theology places the ultimate blame on God, while Arminian forms remove from Him any such responsibility and place it back on us. Here's the problem: Both views must account for vile atrocities like child prostitution. And both views believe in an omnipotent and wholly good God. In short, both must still account for the problem of evil. But to simply say, "well, it's human freedom" does little to get God off the hook. At the heart of the so-called "free will defense" against the problem of evil is the notion that the free choice to love God is so infinitely beautiful and good that it is worth the price of child prostitution. This is, to say the least, a contentious claim. But more importantly, most advocates of this view will also argue that such free choices of love are supremely God-glorifying. Arminian theology doesn't glorify man by placing all the emphasis on him and his choices, says the Arminian, but rather it places equal emphasis on God and His glory. Fair enough. But notice what the Arminian view is now saying: God "allows" (rather than "ordains") child prostitution so that some can freely choose Him, to the end of glorifying Himself. Does that sound familair?

My point here is not necessarily to defend one view over the other. I don't think I've made any case for Reformed theology here. But we need to stop acting as though any one denomination has the sure-fire, bullet-proof response to something as immensely troubling and difficult as the problem of evil. I don't hold to Reformed theology because I think it makes more sense of the problem of evil than Arminian theology, and I would strongly discourage anyone from holding to Arminian theology for the same reason. If you can't accept Reformed doctrine because of exegetical concerns, or because you think it has no adequate grounding for moral responsibility, great! All I wish to submit here is that the mere presence of evil in the world is not by itself sufficient grounds for accepting or rejecting either view. It is, as they say, a two-way street.

Question Of The Day

David N — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:00:24 -0700

Why is it that those who borrow 99% of their ideas from Plato, Augustine and Aquinas are "sheep"...

while those who borrow 99% of their ideas from Nietzsche, Marx and Freud are "free thinkers"?

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 4

Roger — Fri, 02 May 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 4: Conclusion

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists
Part 3: The Condemnation of the Montanists

Conclusion

Epiphanius noted that the Montanists “accept of the Old and New Testaments, and acknowledge likewise the resurrection of the dead, but they boast of having as a prophet one Montanus, and Priscilla and Maximilla as prophetesses, in adhering to whom they have turned from the truth.”[1] The early church did not condemn the Montanists for opposing the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but rather condemned them on mostly prophetic grounds. Specifically, four accusations have been cited against the Montanists: the ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophets. Of these, it appears the accusation of false prophecy was the most common and the most serious.

Several conclusions about the early church can be drawn from this study for the aid of those looking to seriously apply the ancient-future paradigm. First, for each of the critics of Montanism examined, the gift of prophecy was understood to still exist. The cessation of prophecy or charismatic gifts was not the criticism; it was that the so-called prophets were false and misleading. Second, the standard by which to judge whether one is a true or false prophet has at least four criteria: awareness and logical coherence, factuality, coherence with Scripture, and lifestyle above reproach. If any of these criteria are not perfectly met, then the person in question is not a true prophet. Third, prophecy always refers to divine authority and is either true, and thus directly from God, or false, and thus directly against God. This third conclusion has specific application for the contemporary “Third-Wave” movement, which holds prophecy to be only a human report of what they think God has done.[2]

Critics will charge these to be the opinions of some early church fathers and not necessarily biblical teaching. While these were the opinions of the fathers, these teaching were, however, based on their understanding of the Bible. Especially in light of the “ancient-future” paradigm contemporary Christians should not be so quick to dismiss those who were closer to the sources of the Bible (the apostolic authors) and contended earnestly through thoughtful argumentation for the Christian faith as they understood it. We would do well to learn from their examples: to take confidence in the authority and truth of God's word, to apply it ruthlessly in our theology and lifestyles, and act in boldness to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

[1] Epiphanius, 48.3

[2] See Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 2d ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 313-327.

R. Laird Harris (1911-2008)

Roger — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:24:00 -0700

Sean Lucas has posted a note stating that Dr. R. Laird Harris passed away last Friday, April 25th. (HT: JT) Covenant Seminary has a great biography of him. President Bryan Chapell offered these remarks:

"Dr. Harris was a man of great curiosity whose wide-ranging interests led him to explore with eagerness science, theology, people, and the world around him in his quest to better understand and appreciate God's creation. His love for God's Word and the goodness of the Gospel made him a great teacher who demonstrated that brilliant thought and simple faith were not contradictory. His humble and fun-loving heart was a great gift to the two generations of church leaders he helped to train."

Dr. R. Laird Harris wrote, edited, and contributed to a number of books, but one in particular has been important for me: The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. This was one of the books I read while in high school, upon recommendation by a mentor, as I was gaining an eager interest in apologetics and theology. It shaped my understanding of the authority and integrity of the Bible, and I can't think of any book I've read since then that could match the quality and depth of Dr. Harris's work. I've recommended it to many people since, and I commend it to you as well.

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 3

Roger — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 3: The Condemnation of the Montanists

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists

The Condemnation of the Montanists

It should be clear that the Montanists were not condemned for disregarding traditional/orthodox beliefs about the Trinity and salvation. In fact, their adherence to these doctrines led some to accept the Montanists and even join them. However, most church leaders at the time did condemn the movement. Three main sources known today for condemning Montanism: “The Anonymous,” Apollonius, and Epiphanius. From these sources four specific reasons can be assembled: the ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophetic trio.

Two of the sources are found in the history written by Eusebius, in which he recounts why the Montanists were condemned. The first is simply known as “the Anonymous.” After asserting that Montanus was seeking leadership, the Anonymous described how the prophecies came about: Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstacy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.”[1] He recounts that while some accused Montanus of being possessed by a demon, many were taken in by this display of power and followed the proclaimed prophet. F. David Farnell notes the standard the Anonymous used in judging the Montanists on this count: “For the Anonymous, such ecastic, irrational prophesying violated scriptural standards for prophecy…. Prophecies should come in an orderly and rational manner.”[2] The Anonymous attributed such activity by Montanus to Satan himself.

False prophecy was the most common accusation against the Montanists, and the Anonymous accused them of this as well. One of problems in determining what exactly the Montanists said and did is that none of their own writings are currently known and very few quotes that are attributed to them. Even so, one of the quotes attributed to Maximilla says, “After me there will now longer be any prophetess. It will be the end of all.”[3] This “end of all” is understood to mean the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Anonymous was likely referring to a similar prophecy when he said, “And has not this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in the world; but rather, through the mercy of God, continued peace among Christians.”[4]

The third accusation leveled by the Anonymous is the misuse of Scripture. He seems to have been responding to the Montanists’ use of Matthew 23:34 when he said, “Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those the Lord promised to send to the people, let them answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never anywhere.”[5]

Apollonius was Eusebius’s second source in recounting the condemnation of the Montanists. His first accusation had to do, once again, with the false prophecies of the Montanists, however, Eusebius does not record how Apollonius dealt with these prophecies. Farnell speculates that, “Since he discusses Apollonius’s refutation of Montanism right after his survey of the Anonymous, one may reasonably conclude that he may not have given details because this would have overlapped of much material already covered in the discussion on the Anonymous.”[6]

The second accusation made by Apollonius related to the practices and lifestyle of those in the movement, including Montanus. “We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca [Priscilla] a virgin… Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? When therefore I see the prophetess receiving god and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?”[7] This ultimately has to do with whether they were true or false prophets, since Apollonius held that, “It is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.”[8]

Epiphanius accused the Montanists of some of these same things. He contended that the Montanists, “separated themselves, ‘adhering to spirits of error and doctrines of demons.’”[9] He too pointed to the false prophecies of the Montanists. “Everything that the [true] prophets have said, they also said rationally with understanding; and the things they said have come true and are still coming true. But Maximilla said that the consummation would come after her, and no consummation has come yet—even after so many emperors and such a lapse of time!”[10] The central point here is the false prophecy of Maximilla, but Epiphanius also alludes to true prophets speaking “rationally with understanding,” as if to say this is an essential quality of a true prophet absent from the Montanists. He clarified this later in saying, “Now what rational person who receives the ‘profitable’ message with understanding and cares for his salvation, can fail to despise a false religion like this, and the speech of someone who boasts of being a prophet but cannot talk like a prophet?”

Misuse of Scripture is another similar accusation leveled by Epiphanius. “Apparently, the [Montanists] cited the sleep of Adam and his response to Eve’s creation in Genesis 2:21-23 as an example of proof for ecstatic prophecy.”[12] The response of Epiphanius was that, “Adam’s case was nothing like theirs… God brought the unconsciousness of sleep upon Adam, not distraction of mind… Adam’s senses and wits were not in abeyance.”[13] Epiphanius built a case condemning the Montanists for twisting scripture by showing that they changed the meaning of the text. He claimed that, “they wish to mix truth and falsehood and render senseless the minds of those who care about orthodoxy, and they gather for themselves passages by means of which they fabricate their error, claiming they have the same meaning.”[14]

[1] Eusebius 5.16.7-8.

[2] F. David Farnell, “The Montanist Crisis: A Key to Refuting Third-Wave Concepts of NT Prophecy,” Masters Seminary Journal 14 (Fall 2003): 246.

[3] Elaine C. Huber, Women and the Authority of Inspiration (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 220.

[4] Eusebius 5.16.19.

[5] Eusebius, 5.16.12.

[6] Farnell, 248.

[7] Eusebius, 5.18.2

[8] Eusebius, 5.18.11

[9] Epiphanius, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, trans and ed. Philip R. Amidon (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1990), 170. 48.4

[10] Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, ed. J.M. Robinson and H.J. Klimkeit (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997) 48.2.4-7. As quoted in Farnell, 253.

[11] Epiphanius, 48.3, as quoted in Farnell, 255.

[12] Farnell, 256.

[13] Epiphanius, 48.4.6-6.4, as quoted in Farnell, 256.

[14] Epiphanius, 48.4.4

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 2

Roger — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism

The Beliefs of the Montanists

Perhaps more important than the history of Montanism is what those in the group believed. It is commonly noted that the Montanists held mostly orthodox beliefs. Schaff recorded, “In doctrine, Montanism agreed in all essential points with the Catholic Church, and held very firmly to the traditional rule of faith.”[1] Sine the movement existed prior to the councils and creeds, such formulations should not be expected of them. However, in relation to their contemporary doctrines, they expressed orthodox understandings of the Trinity and salvation. Shelly notes that Montanus “came with a demand for a higher standard and a greater discipline and sharper separation of the church from the world. Had he halted there, he could have done little but good, but he went much further.”[2] Deviation from what some might call “the fundamentals” did not trouble the Montanists’ critics. Rather, it appears the church found their claims regarding prophecy and some of their practices intolerable.

F.F. Bruce uniquely summed up Montanus’s position: “For (he maintained) Christ’s promise of the coming Paraclete had now been fulfilled, and he, Montanus, was the Paraclete’s mouthpiece. The coming of the Paraclete was the immediate prelude to the second advent of Christ and the establishment of the New Jerusalem in one of the towns of Phrygia.”[3] The gift of prophecy, according to the Montanists, continued beyond the apostolic age, and each Christian could expect to receive revelation through the power of the Holy Spirit. However, Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were the central prophetic figures. They not only proclaimed the second coming of Christ, but Shelley explains they also set themselves up against the church by claiming higher authority: “The prophet claimed the right to push Christ and the apostolic message into the background.… In the name of the Spirit, Montanus denied that God’s decisive and normative revelation had occurred in Jesus Christ.”[4]

A fundamental element of the Montanist prophecies was their millenarian perspective. D.H. Williams defines a millennial movement “as a religious-social movement which expects immediate, total, collective, this-worldly salvation, and which believes this will be accomplished by divine agencies.”[5] In other words, the substance and motivation of Montanist prophecies rested in the belief in a rapidly approaching apocalypse, which was often characterized by the descent of a New Jerusalem. This eschatological emphasis appears to have enticed many Christians to accept and even follow Montanus and his prophets.

Beyond their beliefs regarding prophecy, the Montanists were also known for some distinctive practices. Because Maximilla and Priscilla had left their husbands to serve with Montanus, some thought that they taught celibacy and the dissolving of existing marriages. However, the records only indicate strong teachings against second marriages. They did adhere to a form of asceticism and self-denial, and this too was rooted in their millenarian perspective.

[1] Phillip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 1950), 421.

[2] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain English, 2^nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 65.

[3] F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 218.

[4] Shelley, 65.

[5] D.H. Williams, “The Origins of the Montanist Movement: A Sociological Analysis,” Religion 19 (1989): 335.

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 1

Roger — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism

Introduction

In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the faith of the early church. Some have insisted the way forward must be traveled first by looking back, and thus embracing an “ancient-future” faith. There is much to be said for such a position since history and tradition ought to significantly inform the faith of those in Christ’s church.

Given this paradigm, the struggles and disputes the church has grappled with through the centuries are of considerable importance to Christians today. The standards put forward by leaders in the early church ought to inform contemporary discussions in some authoritative regard. One such struggle in the early church was with a group who referred to themselves as the New Prophecy.

Those in the New Prophecy, also known as Montanists, immediately raised suspicion and were ultimately condemned as charismatic heretics. The standards used by the early church to condemn this group should have direct implications for current charismatic discussion in light of the “ancient-future” paradigm. Therefore, it is important for theologians today to understand the Montanists and why they were considered heretics to see what it may mean for current debates.

The History of Montanism

Montanus and his followers considered themselves the New Prophecy; however, historians usually refer to the group as Montanists. While it is agreed that Montanus began the movement, there has been some debate as to when it began. Humberto Raul Treiyer notes, “The date of the organization is uncertain because Montanists remained in the Christian churches as long as they were permitted to remain.”[1] Based on calculations in light of Epiphanius, an early apologist, the origins of Montanus’s prophecies date to around 156 C.E.; however, calculations based on Eusebius, an early historian, date the origins to around 171 C.E. Most other speculations fall within these two dates. Some have suggested the earlier date may have been when Montanus began his teaching and the later reflects when the bishops of Asia Minor condemned him.[2]

Montanus was a convert to Christianity in Phrygia, a region in central Asia Minor. According to Treiyer, “Being a devotee of the goddess [Cybele], he most probably was a self-made eunuch, because castration performed in her main sanctuary… was considered the highest manifestation of worship and reverence to her.”[3] Though Montanus was a priest of Cybele, it is unknown to what degree this impacted his Christianity. Shortly after his conversion Montanus began his ministry and enlisted the service of two women, Maximilla and Priscilla. The trio claimed to be prophets bringing new revelation in an effort to reform the church. After being condemned by most church leaders, Montanus was compelled to start new communities of believers, though they still called themselves Christians. The most notable conversion to Montanism was that of the early apologist Tertullian, who made his affiliation known in 201 or 202 C.E. Montanus’s message spread throughout much of Asia Minor, but after repeated condemnations and persecution, the movement was ultimately paralyzed under the persecution of Justinian in 530 C.E. Montanus and Maximilla are said to have committed suicide. “Incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung themselves; not at the same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.”[4]

[1] Humberto Raul Treiyer, “An Investigation into the Possible Influence of Montantism in the Development of the Theology of Tertullian” (D.Theol. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974), 43.

[2] See Paul Monceaux, Histoire Litteraire de l’Afrique Chretienne Deupis Les Origines Jusq’a l’Invasion Arabe, Vol. 1 (Paris: Leroux, 1901-1923) 177.

[3] Treiyer, 39.

[4] Eusebius, “Church History” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 232. 5.16.13

This Is My Body - Part Three

David N — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:29:28 -0700

    Obviously, all four views have some strengths and some weaknesses. It seems to me that it is simply a matter of deciding which view has the fewest weaknesses and the most strengths. For me, the Reformed view is the clear winner, but with Memorialism in a close second. Let me elaborate.

   The Reformed critiques of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views are, I believe, devastating. To confer a divine attribute to Christ’s human nature is nothing less than a violation of the Chalcedonian Creed, which affirms that Christ’s two natures are neither confused nor mixed. Likewise, the finite cannot contain the infinite, which rules out any doctrine of the Eucharist that would seek to contain Christ within the elements. David P. Scaer’s response to this argument was twofold: First, he argued that we cannot let a philosophical axiom be a basis of doctrine. This is a weak argument, however, since I’m sure Scaer would agree that we can and should (and indeed must!) allow the basic laws of logic to be a basis for doctrine. Second, he argued that without the power to contain itself in the finite, the infinite would not truly be infinite.   But this sounds like the sort of argument that says “if God were truly omnipotent He could do anything, including make a contradiction true.” But this, of course, is to misconstrue the meaning of omnipotence. Likewise Scaer seems to have the wrong idea about infinitude.

   Moreover, Russell D. Moore’s argument that the misunderstanding of Christ’s metaphorical teachings about Himself is a recurring theme in John’s gospel (an argument that can easily be appropriated by the Reformed view) deals a similar deathblow to Catholicism and Lutheranism by removing the force of the most explicit passage of Scripture in their favor (John 6).

   But what of the Memorialist view? There is strength in their connection of the Lord’s Supper to Passover, which was by no means a meal that conferred special grace or contained the Spirit of God. And if we are to support Memorialist arguments regarding the metaphorical nature of Christ’s body and blood, why not go all the way and admit that the elements are merely signs that point metaphorically to those realities?

    I believe there is one primary reason to affirm the Reformed view rather than the Memorialist view (I think there are others, but they would take us too far into other areas of theology), and it is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 16. In this verse, Paul is clear that when we eat of the bread and drink of the cup we are actually participating with Christ’s body and blood in a special way that is different from the “regular” participation with Christ that the church in general enjoys. At this point, Russell D. Moore reminds us that Paul contrasts this with food offered to idols, which he says makes a person a participant with demons. Does this imply that eating food offered to idols allows a person to spiritually commune with the “real presence” of a demon? Of course not. But here I think Moore simply makes the mistake of directly equivocating what the Lord’s Supper means and what food sacrificed to demons means. What is significant in this passage is not that there is a direct and perfect correlation between the two, but rather that Paul is affirming that there is something real and supernatural at work behind the worship of idols. To be sure, the statues themselves are lifeless creations of man and the “gods” they represent do not exist, but behind them is the real, supernatural work of Satan and his demons. That is the only point Paul is trying to make here. The correlation to the Lord’s Supper, then, is in the fact that, likewise, there is something very real and very supernatural going on behind the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This strongly suggests something more than mere symbolism.

   For these reasons, then, I believe the Reformed view to be the superior understanding of the doctrine of Holy Communion, while at the same time acknowledging that such a profound mystery will never fully be grasped by the human mind, at least not this side of Paradise.

This Is My Body - Part Two

David N — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:54:30 -0700

This second post will give a brief overview of the three remaining positions on the Lord's Supper: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed. The third and final post will be my critique of the four positions, as well as my argument for which position I believe is the best (most biblical) one.

Roman Catholic

I place the Roman Catholic view next because it represents that opposite extreme from Memorialism and is (mostly) just as straightforward. According to Roman Catholics, during the Mass (when the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist is celebrated), when the Priest consecrates the bread and wine, a miracle occurs and the very substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. According to Aquinas’s formulation, which remains official Catholic dogma to this day, while the substance is changed, the accidents remain the same. So, the bread still looks, feels, and tastes like bread, but nevertheless its substance has become the body of Christ Himself.

Roman Catholics would take Christ’s words of institution in the Gospels literally, as they would also take Christ’s words in John 6 literally. Also undergirding this view is the Catholic understanding of sacrifice and the continuation of the priesthood. Each Lord’s Supper is another sacrifice, albeit an “unbloody” one.

Lutheran

The Lutheran view is very close to the Roman Catholic one, but with slight differences. The Lutheran view is often referred to as “Consubstantiation”, denoting the idea of one substance being with or along side another. This is typically explained in terms of Christ being “in, with and under” the elements. The Lutheran doctrine is notoriously difficult to articulate. On the one hand, they fully affirm that Christ is actually and physically present in the elements, that Christ is literally ingested through the mouth, and that the elements are really changed somehow. And yet, on the other hand, they deny transubstantiation and the notion that the substance of the bread and wine actually change. A metaphor that is used to explain this is a piece of iron that is placed in a fire. When it comes out, every single molecule of the metal is changed in some way. The metal is infused at every point with the heat of the fire. And yet the substance of the metal has not changed.

Luther also took very seriously Christ’s words in the gospels, “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Although, historically, Lutherans have shied away from using John 6 as support for their view. David P. Scaer (a Lutheran theologian) argues that that should change.

Reformed

Lastly is the “Reformed” view. Although many Reformed churches today follow Zwingli and the Memorialist view, the majority of Reformed churches since the Reformation have held this fourth view, which might simply be called Calvin’s view. Calvin objected to the Roman Catholic view because it conferred a divine attribute, omnipresence, to the human nature of Christ. He rejected the Lutheran view for this same reason, and also because he held to the axiom that the finite cannot contain the infinite, and therefore any theology of the Eucharist that claimed that Christ was actually contained within the elements must be rejected.

Still, however, Calvin took seriously the “real presence” of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, even going so far as to affirm that we do indeed partake of Christ’s flesh and blood. How could this be? Calvin understood that while the two natures of Christ were distinct, they were also inseparably joined. This meant that even though Christ’s human nature is localized in Heaven, it is united to His divine nature, which is omnipresent. Thus, by partaking of Christ’s divine nature (which is present in a special way during Communion), through the Holy Spirit, we are also partaking of His human nature. Calvin readily admitted that this is a mystery beyond our comprehension. In the same mystical way that Christ’s two natures are united, so we can mystically commune with and partake of Christ’s human nature through His divine nature, which is brought to the Supper and given to the believer by the Holy Spirit (interestingly, this focus on the Holy Spirit in Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper bears some similarities to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine. So much so, in fact, that both Catholic and Lutheran theologians have pointed this out. In many ways, it actually seems as though the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist is closer to the Reformed view than to the Roman view. This would be an interesting topic of exploration for another time).

So, which view is the best (in my young and humble opinion)? Stay tuned!

(For a recap of the Memorialist view click here).

America Bewitched?

Roger — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Most polls quoted these days claim that anywhere from 80 to 90% of Americans believe in God. Some people find comfort in this statistic, but it actually says very little about the God or god they believe in. For example, included in that number are a rising number of pagans and witches. A recent MTV.com feature highlights some of the popular incentives for practicing "the Craft":

Witches do not worship Satan and hardly ever practice black magic. Witches or Wiccans, who practice similar strains of Paganism, may follow numerous ancient, Earth-based traditions of worship, but have a few simple beliefs in common: 1) a deep, spiritual respect for nature; 2) worship of a deity (or god) who is equally male and female (priests and priestesses have equal power); and 3) accountability for all your own actions. In other words, being a witch includes believing in environmentalism, equality of the sexes and karma.

The following is from an article on witches in Salem and a recent public educational forum:

Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. “Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,” she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies courses are offered in major universities, she said.

Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: "A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle "The Craft" and the "Harry Potter" series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one)." The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream.

As people in our culture look ever in toward themselves, they care less for objective truth and more for what feels right to them:

But many young people enter the Craft in reaction to a very conservative religious upbringing — Southern Baptist, perhaps, or Catholic. "Some people don't feel God in the church, so they seek out different expressions of God that are more personal or mystic," said Raven, who has mentored younger Pagans and is active in the online community. "[Witchcraft] is revolting against common views of God. That's a huge part of the appeal, especially for young people — that you don't have to follow the herd."

The videos (which I recommend watching- the second starts after the first concludes) feature a recurring theme: "there is no wrong way to worship." This is why Wiccans only have "a few simple beliefs in common." Though united in these few things, every Wiccan approaches religion like a buffet- only taking those things that appeal to them. Religious belief is no longer in the realm of objective truth, it is now private expression.

Wicca and related pagan religions make up just some of the hundreds of options put before Americans today, but it all boils down to two options: Will you seek the true God of the universe who refuses to to be crafted according to your mutable desires, or will you idolize and worship feelings that don't exist apart from yourself?

Are we as Christians prepared to preach the gospel to those who choose the latter?

Christian Answers for a New Age has some great articles on this topic.

Articles and books by Peter Jones are also an excellent resource. I especially recommend Capturing the Pagan Mind.

This Is My Body - Part One

David N — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:24:05 -0700

(Note: The following post was adapted from a paper I wrote for a Theology class. As such, much of its descriptions of different theological viewpoints are painted with very broad strokes. Still, I tried to keep them as accurate as possible)

If you stopped random evangelicals on the street and asked them what the differences are between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the top three responses would likely be the Pope, the adoration of Mary, and the Lord’s Supper. The average evangelical layperson may not know very much about Roman Catholic dogma, but he is likely to know that they believe in transubstantiation (even if he isn’t familiar with that term). What the average layperson is not likely to know is that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was also the single most divisive doctrine within the various camps of Protestantism as well, sharply dividing Lutherans from their Reformed counterparts. Today in the West, there are basically four major views of the Lord’s Supper, three of which are held by different Protestant evangelical groups; Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist/Pentecostal. In this series of posts, I will briefly outline the four positions, and then offer my critical analysis. For the sake of space, I will leave out questions of how often the sacrament should be administered, who should administer it, who can partake, whether or not other elements can be substituted for bread and wine, etc. I will instead focus on what I believe is the primary issue, namely the presence of Christ. Where is Christ present? How is He present? How is the sacrament efficacious? With these questions in mind, let us now explore the first view.

Memorialist

    The Memorialist view, first articulated by the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, says that Christ is not locally present in or with the elements themselves in any sense, physical or spiritual. Rather, the elements are signs that point us to the spiritual reality they are meant to signify. Memorialists focus on Christ’s command to “do this in remembrance” of Him. Thus the Lord’s Supper points us back, to remind us of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. But it also points us forward, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:26 that as often as the Lord’s Supper is celebrated Christians “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” This aspect of proclamation also highlights what is going on in the present. Believers are being uplifted and strengthened in their faith, in much the same way as they would be by the preaching of the Word.
    Memorialists argue that Christ’s words of institution in the Gospels, “this is my body” and “this is my blood” are symbolic or metaphorical. This is especially true of Christ’s words in John 6:53-54, where he seems to explicitly teach that believers must actually eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Russel D. Moore responds to the Catholic reading of these verses by pointing out that there is an ongoing theme in John’s gospel of Jesus teaching metaphorically, but being taken literally by his hearers and thus misunderstood by them. In John 2, for example, Jesus teaches that He will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, and his hearers do not understand becaue they assume he means the literal temple in Jerusalem. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and Nicodemus is confused because he takes Christ’s metaphor literally. In John 4, when Jesus speaks of living water, the Samaritan woman takes him literally and misunderstands what he is trying to teach. And more examples abound.
    Memorialists also ground their position in a continuity between the Passover feast and the Lord’s Supper. Just as the Passover feast was meant as a celebration and remembrance of things past and a proclamation and hope of things to come, so is the Lord’s Supper. More importantly, there was nothing spiritually efficacious about eating the Passover meal, and neither is there with the Lord’s Supper.

Doing What's Right in Our Own Eyes

Amy — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:35:54 -0700

There's a story in Judges about a man who sends his concubine out to be abused by the men of the town in order to save his own skin. When he finds her dead in the morning, he sends parts of her body to all the tribes of Israel as a shocking, visual wake-up call revealing the depths of the country's moral depravity.

I imagine that the people of Israel who heard of this felt a nausea, horror, and sense of impending judgment similar to what I felt reading this today:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts [an art student at Yale] will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body . . . "I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

There's a detailed description of the exhibit in the article, but there's no way I'm going to post it here. All I can say is that our country is hurtling down a dark, ugly road if we're producing people like this woman. How did the creation and destruction of human life become a clever way of "sparking conversation"? We had better wake up.

Yale now insists that the whole project is a fake, but Shvarts is sticking to her story, saying her purpose was to point out that the "central ambiguity [of not knowing whether or not she was actually pregnant] defies a clear definition of the act [of miscarriage]. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming--an authorial act." Second, she meant to "assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form, It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." It was her goal to use her body outside the "narrative of reproduction" in order to shock people into acknowledging that it is the "prerogative of every individual" to explore other uses for his or her body. (This, of course, would be absolutely true in a postmodern, Darwinist, Creatorless world.)

Connected with the obvious atrociousness of Shvarts sick use of human life is her view of art:

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

Art is a medium for politics and ideologies? Whatever happened to goodness, truth, and beauty? To uplifting the viewer? Where did this new grotesque and ugly standard of art come from? Why is this the only standard she knows of? It's not hard to figure out that just like in the days of Judges, a country that loses sight of the living, holy, good God will soon be stripped of all beauty, and everything--good or evil--rather than being things to delight in or abhor, will be reduced to mere "statements."

Because of God, there is real beauty and it's tragic that so many people in our culture have never tasted it. It's easy to forget when we're feasting on the glory of God that most people have no idea a banquet like this even exists. Let this remind us of our responsibility to tell them.

(HT: Steve Wagner)

Interview with David Wells, Part 2

Roger — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Click here Part One of the interview.

One of the criticisms made of new media platforms (such as blogging and social networks like MySpace and Facebook) is that they encourage fascination with the self. How might Christians involved in new media avoid the trap of self-fascination?

Virtual reality can simply be a world of information or it can be the world into which the lonely and the disconnected find solace and “relationships” which have none of the human reality of actual relationships. Virtual relationships are an illusion; real relationships are what we are made for by creation. So, we need simply to ask ourselves how we are using these technologies and why. What needs are they meeting? The need for information or for communication is one thing; the need for distraction, or to feel connected is something else. Technology can’t really do too much which is healthy along these lines if a basis of relationship is not already there.

You draw a strict line between spiritual practices that are pagan in nature and biblical in nature. How do some evangelical practices today reflect pagan spirituality rather than biblical spirituality?

The key is that biblical spirituality comes from “above” and pagan spirituality comes from “below.” The language of “above” is used over and over again in Scripture of Christ’s incarnation from a realm which we as humans and as sinners cannot access. God is, as it were, beyond our reach and beyond our natural radar. That fact, however, is not obvious to us. If it were, we who are sinners would not be seeking him on our own terms, in our own way, and assuming that he can be accessed when we want and for whatever it is that we want. These assumptions make up the spirituality from “below” and while it is exactly what pagans have always done it is now exactly what contemporary consumers are doing. The sacred is there to be used when we want, how we want, and for whatever needs we have just as products are which we can buy at the mall.

Many of the emergents who teach pagan spiritual practices "from below," as you've identified them, believe their spirituality is "from above" because the practices are based on the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Is this just the language game, or can the Spirit use practices "from below" to teach and enrich the lives of God's people?

No, we should not play games with ourselves. The work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is tied to the Word written and the Word living. The work of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the Scripture he inspired in the first place and, second, to apply the work of Christ to people today. So, in this sense, the work of the Spirit coincides with the work of Christ. Why else would Scripture speak of the Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ” or “his Spirit”? When people start ascribing to the Spirit their own internal intuitions, senses about life, desires, and yearnings, they will soon find themselves adrift if they have not asked themselves two questions: first, have I checked what I am sensing against the (objective) revelation of God’s Word? Second, is what I am sensing leading me to a deeper understanding of, and more faithful service to Christ? If we have no answers to these questions, let us speak no more about the “Spirit” doing this and doing that!

Some believe that it is the churches that have neglected the reciting and teaching of Christian creeds and confessions that have fallen out of historic Protestantism today. How effective do you think creeds and confessions might be in helping to rebuild the evangelical church?

Creeds and confessions are secondary reflections on biblical truth which seek to capture what it is teaching in succinct ways. They are very helpful to those who, at a primary level, are daily engaged with the truth of Scripture. And, almost incidentally, they are reminders—since most come from the past-- that we belong to a single people of God which stretches across time and is found in almost very culture in the world. Creeds and confessions, however, are of little use to those who are strangers to the truth of Scripture.

You conclude that churches must be God centered as opposed to consumer or Self centered. Since most Christians aren't involved in church leadership, how might individuals effect changes toward God centered Protestantism?

It is hard, on the one hand, for those in what used to be called the pew to change the tenor and temper of their churches when their pastors are off chasing success, numbers, and cultural “relevance.” Many churches, on the other hand, deserve the leaders they have because their audiences (may we still say “congregations”?!) are enablers who want their Christianity lite and undemanding. Here are all the symptoms of our decline and among those who yearn for something so much better are the seeds of renewal. May their number grow every day!

What About the Inquisition?

Amy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00:00 -0700

We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists. Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity? Does it render our past completely barbaric?

Here's a question that can help clarify the issues involved with the Inquisition objection: Do you honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him for not inventing a computer? Edison explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb. Was he a colossal failure? Absolutely not. Data (in this case, the data of the physical world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply. Edison had a less than perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed since the beginning. Eventually scientific data would lead to computers, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time. And even though at the time of the light bulb's creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not discredit science for all time.

Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm of morality and Christianity. Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible. And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies. This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal--with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn't yet occurred to them. (For example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)

It's no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data. That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West. But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature. Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies' slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science. The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied. And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions we have today.

But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel, did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today? The answer might be similar to the reason why He didn't supply them with computers. A computer would have been completely beyond their grasp. In the same way, Israel had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that time. Some things, to be fully understood, accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time, learning little by little. Applications of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a society. This, in turn, lays the groundwork for discovering more applications.

What God did do is speak to Israel where they were. He addressed the world as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today. He told us that we're all--men and women--created in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon). We're not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16), we're not to punish people in a way that humiliates them (Deut 25:3), we're not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one--rich or poor (Lev 19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)--is to be favored when justice is dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.

Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral weaknesses--stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false beliefs--have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult, slow process. This is why the Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity. And in fact, it gives further witness to the truthfulness of the Bible's central message of our desperate need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides.