Science, models and paradigms

Science as a field is the empirical discovery of how things work. Normally, science works through models. In logical positivism, scientific theories work by means of verification. In this model, one has a model, a theorem, or a hypothesis. One tests the model through doing experiments. Depending on the data one receives from the (empirical) experiments, which ideally should be double-blind (especially in clinical trials) and repeated as many times (to minimize variation in the results as much as possible), the results either prove or disprove the model/ theory/ hypothesis. This is what most scientists think they are doing: they are validating a model that they propose. They have a null hypothesis (H₀), and an alternate hypothesis (H₁), which could be simply the negation of H₀. In the ideal experiment (which seldom exists), the scientists can run enough tests to generate more than 30 results, so that he can plot the results on a normal distribution curve to test the null hypothesis. In science, there are no bad results. Even negative results say something, although whether that is helpful or not for his research project is of course a question the individual scientist has to think over.

In the early 20th century, Karl Popper proposed an alternate way of how science is thought to work. Popper recognized, quite rightly, that the verificationist theory of scientific methodology is logically fallacious. Holding to that view of how science works mean that every scientist has been committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (If p, then q, q; therefore p). Now, it is certainly possible for science to discover true things despite having a flawed view of scientific methodology. However, it also means that it is possible to think that one has proven a model when that model is actually false. After all, if two models predict the exact same empirical result, how can one choose between the two unless one can come up with another experiment to which the two models will predict different results. While this sounds easy to do, such testing is harder in practice than it is said. For example, a key component of the mainstream Big Bang theory, ΛCDM, is the (generalized) Copernican principle, which states that the universe has no actual center. [The "explosion" is not a explosion of mass into a 3D space. Rather, it is the explosion of space and matter in a 4D hyperspace. To use a balloon analogy, the surface of the balloon is the 3D universe we are in, while the "air" inside the balloon signifies "hyperspace," and as such both 3D space and time "ballooned" into being.] According to observable data, most of the universe is red-shifted to us, implying that those objects are moving away from us (to be clear, it is thought that it is the space that is moving or expanding, not the object that is actually accelerating away from us). Now, if everything we observe is moving away from us, then it could imply that we observers on earth are at the center of this movement. That is where the Copernican principle comes in. If all space is like the surface of a balloon without a center, then the mere observation of almost everything being red-shifted away from us means nothing. The Copernican principle states that anywhere in the universe, any observer will see a general red-shift of most stellar and extra-galactic objects moving away from us.

The question before us is: just how are we supposed to test the Copernican Principle? Yes, Geocentrism is out. But how does one prove or disprove galactocentrism? The issue of quantized red-shifts for example seems to suggest some form of galacto-centrism.

The key point I want to drive at is that testing between two competing models is not as easy as it sounds. But I still haven't discussed Popper's alternate proposal. Popper's proposal is to replace a theory of verification to one of falsification. Instead of having science prove something, the purpose of experiments is to disprove something. Science according to Popper disproves models, not proves models. By disproving an alternative, the scientist can show that his model is more likely, or even most likely.

It is safe to say that most scientists have not progressed to the Popperian stage. It is not sufficient to use Popper's vocabulary of falsification, but to also understand that Popper's philosophy of science places a significant limit to the ability of science to decipher truth. If Popper is right, then science can only discover workable data that are likely true, not "truth."

The last theory to be looked is that of Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn's idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts has unfortunately sometimes been misunderstood by large swaths of the public, most notably C. John Collin in his book Science and Faith: Friends or Foes. Kuhn's theory, at least the initial part, is elegant yet simple. Scientists come to their inquiries with a certain frame of mind; i.e. they are not tabula rasa. A paradigm is a general worldview or mindset that informs and influences scientists, and that is conditioned by the prevailing scientific culture (or "academic culture" pre-Enlightenment) among other intellectual and social factors. The frame of mind influences scientific research, directing the questions to be asked and the burden of proof required, as well as which models are seen to be more likely. Paradigm shifts occur when sufficient outliers and unresolved problems with the current models are present to induce a shift to another paradigm. Note here that paradigms are NOT models. They can rather be termed a "meta-model" if you wish. And while the earlier Kuhn speak of times of crisis during paradigm shifts, the later Kuhn admits that the shifts might not be some earth-shattering transition with a clear temporal demarcation.

The implication Kuhn's theory has on science is huge, which is probably why most scientists aren't too keen on what he has to say. He is almost, as it were, the "post-modern" philosopher of science. But it is very likely that Kuhn's philosophy of science is in fact true. The climate science scandal is one such clear example whereby those who deny Global Climate Change (at least in its current apocalyptic form) are censored because of a prevailing paradigm for Global Climate Change. More pertinent to our discussion here, and back to our example, why is the Copernican Principle in the idea of a center-less universe accepted when there is, at least currently, no way to prove it? Or let's take another example going back to biology, why is abiogenesis affirmed even though every experiment done has failed to prove it? The Miley-Urey experiment after all does not count since (absent the discussion of the exact constitution of the primeval atmosphere and "soup"), a racemic mixture of amino acids is far from evidence for even the natural constitution of the basic blocks of life (which requires D-sugars, L-Amino Acids, and D-nucleotides for starters).

There are a lot of problems with the naturalistic evolutionary narrative of the universe, but we are not even at the point of discussing them. The issue is that the evolutionary narrative itself as a paradigm (a "meta-model") is to a certain extent not falsifiable. That is Kuhn's contribution to our discussion and the philosophy of science. Because of a reigning paradigm, science itself is not neutral in the way it is portrayed by scientists. A telling example is in the evolutionary metanarrative, both the presence and the absence of transitional fossils are considered proofs for evolution. If one accepts the former, one holds to Gradualism. If one accepts the latter, one holds to Punctuated Equilibrium. Thus, at least on the subject of transitional fossils, evolution is not falsifiable. Such manner of rendering the meta-theory unfalsifiable is not limited just to transitional fossils, but is pervasive. Note the controversy or rather non-controversy over the Big Bang model, even when the expected amount of dark matter and dark energy were not found as expected by their models. Instead of jettisoning the Big Bang [meta-] model, scientists went back and proposed modified models to try to account for the observations, even while keeping the Big Band paradigm. Stories like this show that the paradigm is not testable and not falsifiable. Thus, at the back of scientific models lies the reigning paradigm, which by its nature is elastic enough such that only extreme stress on the paradigm would cause a transition to another.

Putting the various philosophies of science together, we can see that many scientists think of their work like logical positivists. Most of them hopefully work like Popperians, while in actual fact the scientific enterprise work in Kuhnian paradigms and paradigm shifts. Christians ought to recognize this, because otherwise we will always be on the defensive against the supposed claims of science.

[to be continued]

Ephesians 4:11 and gifts to the church

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.(Eph, 4:1-16 ESV)

καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, (Eph. 4:11 SBL GNT)

While growing up, I have heard Ephesians 4:11 stated to be one of the passages discussing spiritual gifts, alongside other passages like 1 Corinthians 12. Over time, I have felt uneasy with the categorization of this verse as one speaking of spiritual gifts, as if there were the gift of apostleship, the gift of prophet (not necessarily the same as the gift of prophecy), the gift of an evangelist, and the gift of shepherd and teacher, or pastor-teacher. The passage interpreted as such contributes categories into the mixture of gifts that are supposedly available to believers, and each Christian was to discern his or her spiritual giftings (usually involving some form of personality testing or something to that effect), and then operate and serve in the church with the gifts they have. After all, Ephesians 4: 12 speaks of "every member ministry" for building up the body of Christ, or so they interpret that verse.

The context of Ephesians 4:1-16 is that of the Body Life of the Church. It speaks about Christ giving gifts to His people. In this passage, Paul in verse 8 cites Psalms 68:18, but switches the verb from one of receiving (לָקַ֣חְתָּ)to one of giving (ἔδωκεν). Instead of the King ascending and receiving gifts among men, Christ the King ascends and gave gifts to Man. The switch speaks of the change in the stage of redemptive history, plus it gives us the context. Christ give gifts to His people as a result of His conquest over sin and death, and His ascension procured all the benefits He is giving His Church.

It must be noted here that the context is the Body of Christ, the Church, not just individual Christians. In verses 4 and 5, we see emphasized the oneness of the Church, having one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Christ is thus giving gifts to His Church. The purpose of the gifts are for building her up (vv. 12-16), not some idea of personal edification however important that might be.

The focus on the Church implies that the gifts are not given to individuals per se, but to the Church. Such is clearly seen in verse 11 itself. God in Christ gave the apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers. Note that those officers are the direct object of the verb of giving. So Christ gave the apostles etc. He did not give the gifts to the apostles and other officers of the church , which would require rendering the officers as the indirect objects. No, Christ gave the officers, to... the Church, for that is what the entire context is speaking of. In other words, it is not that Christ give, for example, Paul the gift of apostleship so that he might be an apostle. Rather, Christ gave Paul the Apostle to the Church.

Ephesians 4:11 therefore is not about individual spiritual gifts. In fact, since "spiritual gifts" is normally seen to be various individual believers, Ephesians 4:11 is not speaking of "spiritual gifts" at all. Both the context of Ephesians 4: 1-16 and the grammar of the text militates against that common Evangelical interpretation. Christ gives officers to His Church. Therefore it implies that officers are not something one grows into, but a special calling by God. It implies that ordination is required for officers, since it is not a mere role someone takes up when one has the "appropriate gift."

Just to show that this is not a novel interpretation, I post here from two commentaries:

Note, The great gift that Christ gave to the church at his ascension was that of the ministry of peace and reconciliation. The gift of the ministry is the fruit of Christ’s ascension. And ministers have their various gifts, which are all given them by the Lord Jesus. The officers which Christ gave to his church were of two sorts—extraordinary ones advanced to a higher office in the church: such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief. [Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: Complete and unabridged in one volume (2313). Peabody: Hendrickson. Logos]

The first gift is, his apostles. It is not meant that he gave to some the gifts needed to constitute them apostles, though that is true; but that, having qualified some to be apostles, he gave them to the Church.[Ephesians. 1909 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.). The Pulpit Commentary (148). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company. Logos]

It is noted here that both writers do not dispute the fact that God give gifts to office bearers, but that the focus is God giving officers to His Church. Here is where I would like to be more precise, for the passage does not speak of gifts to the officers of the Church. Therefore, while they would certainly possess gifts, the gifts and the officers are distinct. In other words, one might have various gifts which would qualify one to be an apostle, but there is no particular "gift," for example, of "apostleship." "Apostleship" demarcates an office, not a gift. The office is the gift to the Church, not one particular gift for the office.

Christ gave gifts to His Church for her benefit. The Church is to receive them as good things from her Lord, and receive them with joy, for if they labor with groaning, "that would be of no advantage to you" (Heb. 13: 17ff).

Creation days as upper-register time?

In the developed Framework view, the idea of Genesis one being a literary framework is not just promoted, but it is promoted to the exclusion of other alternate theories of origins, theistic evolution excepted. In a handout I had prepared for a friend on the differing views of creation days, the point was made that the Framework view was merely the belief that Genesis One is a literary framework, and therefore one could theoretically hold on to Framework and YEC, Framework and OEC, and anything in between. I now see that while that is true for a generic Framework view, it is not true for the true hard-core Framework proponents, with people like Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline basically stating that other views like YEC and Day-Age are unacceptable and promoting a much stronger and fleshed-out version of the Framework view, one which actually states more than just the belief that Genesis One is a literary framework.

One place that shows it is more than a mere literary framework is in its cosmology. Framework cosmology is a two-register cosmology. The Upper Register is "the invisible dwelling place of God and His holy angels, that is, heaven" (p. 236). The Lower Register is called "'earth,' but includes the whole visible cosmos from the planet Earth to the star-studded sky (Col. 1:16)." The Upper Register where God is is called the "archetype," and the Lower Register the analogical replica (p. 238). The relationship is one of analogy, where what happens in the Upper Register has an analogous reflection in the Lower Register. Irons and Kline see this pattern of analogy reflected from Genesis 1:1, which is not a summary of the subsequent creation account but a statement about God making the "heavens" (Upper Register) and the "earth" (Lower Register), following which the "earth" is analogically divided into the star-studded heavens and the earth (p. 240). Irons and Kline see the two-register cosmology in Genesis 1:1-2:3 in the following pairs (p. 242):

	1:1	1:2	Days 1-6	Day 6	Day 7
Upper Register	Heaven	Spirit	Fiats	Divine Council	God's Rest
Lower Register	Earth	Deep	Fulfillments	Man as Image	Sabbath Ordinance

Having established this two register cosmology, Irons then argued for the creation days being upper register days, which have some unknown relation to the Lower Register which "God has not chosen to reveal" (p. 246). That is sortof convenient. Nevertheless, we press on. The reason why they are Upper Register days is because they are bracketed in front and in the back by Upper Register time periods. For the front bracket, Irons claimed that Prov. 8:22-30 proves that the phrase "in the beginning" is upper register time (p. 241). For the back bracket, Irons claimed that the conclusion of creation week is the upper register heavenly rest of God. Since both bookends are upper register, thus the creation days themselves must be upper register.

According to Kline, Prov. 8:22-30 "explicitly places the events of the six days after 'the beginning'" (p. 243. Emphasis original). Therefore, 'in the beginning' "cannot be interpreted as an ordinary, lower-register time statement." However, such is a strange way of understanding the passage in Prov. 8:22-30. First of all, it rests upon the interpretation that Gen. 1:1 is not a summary statement of the subsequent verses. Secondly, there is something "before" the beginning, namely, God and all that He is including His plans. God's decrees, being His decrees, are temporally coextensive with Him and thus exist from eternity. Thus, in the beginning was God's decrees, because the decrees is coextensive with God and thus before the beginning in eternity past. God's attributes are before time, and there is nothing really controversial about that!

Furthermore, there is no reason why stating the "in the beginning" is upper register would necessitate the days being upper register. If we take Irons' understanding of Genesis 1:1, then from Genesis 1:2 onwards we are in fact dealing with "Lower Register" realities; we have descended into the "earth." So even if Irons' point regarding the front bracket were true, it does not prove anything concerning the creation days.

The idea of God's Sabbath rest being an upper register moment seems easier to defend, since it is God who proclaimed that He rested that day. Irons then links this with the concept of the eternal Sabbath spoken of in Heb. 4, which did cite from the Genesis account. The seventh day for God is thus continuing from Creation until even after the Eschaton, and specifically God's day.

A major problem however arise when we read Rev. 4-5 concerning the events in Heaven, the "Upper Register." Here, we read of the first round of worship being given for the glory of God the Creator, and then the second round of worship to the Lamb for the glory of God the Redeemer. This seems to imply a dual work for God: Creation, and Redemption (or New Creation). In other words, God in His works does not after Creation continues on an eternal Sabbath rest, but Redemption is a work like Creation. The rest spoken of in Heb. 4 therefore must imply the Sabbath rest of the Lamb when His people are all saved, which is analogous to the rest of God the Creator when His creating work is done.

Scripture therefore speaks of two main works of God: Creation, and New Creation. As such, God's Creation Sabbath rest is not unending. It can be said to "end" when Adam and Eve fell.

Till now, we have just established that God's Sabbath rest is not unending. But is it Upper Register, or Lower Register? Here, we notice that if we state that it ended when Adam and Eve fell, then it is somehow tied to the creature and thus seem to be Lower Register.

Before we continue on this thought experiment further, it must be stated that the whole "two register cosmology" has never been proven. That there is an invisible realm where God and the angels primarily are, which is called heaven, is not controverted. The point of contention is the supposed analogous relationships between the "archetype" and the reality. First of all, it is revealing that the creation days have no correspondence to anything in the lower register in the Framework view, which is interesting since all the supposed pairs are matched. As evidence for this theory, we can discount the examples of the commands of God, since under any and every theory, God's authoritative commands always result in fulfillments. We can discount the Heaven-Earth pair in Genesis 1:1 since their pairing is a circular argument presupposing that it is referring to the Two-register cosmology in the first place. The Image of God is not plural, so we can discount that. What we have left are insufficient to support a theory. Since other theories can account for the relation between God's rest and the Sabbath ordinance, why is there a need for a two-register cosmology at all? As the stake in the corpse, how does one decipher which part is upper register and which part lower register when one goes through the creation account, since anything lower register (like days) might actually be upper register? It seems very convenient that the "inconvenient parts" like "days are "upper register" while the Garden of Eden, the various animals etc. are "lower register."

The notion that the creation days are "upper register time" therefore seem to be grasping at straws. The entire cosmology might look beautiful in its structure, but it does not come from the text and there is no necessity for making it with the exception of holding to the strong Framework view. In other words, the whole cosmology look more to be a system made to flesh out a theory, and thus at best is one possibility to understand Scripture, and at worst the imposition of a foreign system to determine biblical exegesis (i.e. eisegesis).

Because it had not rained, and providence in the process of creation?

וְכֹ֣ל שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכָל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֙א הִמְטִ֜יר יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ וְאֵ֖ד יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְהִשְׁקָ֖ה אֶֽת־כָּל־פְּנֵֽי־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ (Gen 2:5-6)

In their contribution to the book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (ed. David G. Hagopian; Mission Vejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline presented and defended the Framework view of the creation account so aptly they virtually demolished the opposition. One of their arguments which was left unanswered (in the book Ligon Duncan and David Hall tried but their response was garbled c.f. p. 261) was the argument from Gen. 2:5-6. They appealed to Gen. 2: 5-6 to establish the "principle of continuity between the mode of providence during and after the creation period" (p. 229). Since there is a such a principle of continuity, therefore ordinary providence as opposed to extraordinary providence must be operative during the creation "days." It is noted here that the topic here is providence, not miracles. The divine fiats are miracles, but the maintaining of the "stuff" already present is providence.

This principle of continuity is explained by Irons with Kline slightly later:

If our [Irons' and Kline's] exegesis of Genesis 2:5-6 is correct, then it informs us that the Creator did not originate plant life on the earth before He has prepared an environment in which He might preserve it without bypassing secondary means and without having recourse to extraordinary means. As such, Genesis 2:5 contains an "unargued presupposition," namely, "that the divine providence was operating during the creation period through processes which any reader would recognize as normal in the natural world of his day." If God had so decreed, there would have no obstacle to His creating the vegetation prior to establishing a normal providential support system. He could have created the plants and sustained them supernaturally even before He created the soil. God in His omnipotent creative power could have done these things. Yet Genesis 2: 5-6 tells us that in planning the order in which He would call the various creatures into existence, God did not rely upon supernatural means to maintain them once created. (p. 231. Emphasis original)

Since Irons and Kline see the creation account in Genesis 2 as essentially a recapitulation of Genesis 1, the statement about the vegetation in Genesis 2:5-6 is also a statement about the creation of vegetation in "Day 3" of Genesis 1, and then this "principle of continuity" is extended from plants (vegetation) to all the other aspects of creation.

In response, we need to ask why we think that Genesis 2:5-6 refer back to the "Day 3" event. We note here the object is not just vegetation in general as in Day 3 (דֶּ֔שֶׁא , עֵ֚שֶׂב - Gen. 1:11), but specifically the "shrub of the field" (שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה), or "herb of the field" (עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה). While differences in words used do not necessarily imply a difference in meaning, here the adjectival phrase "of the field" seem to suggest a qualitative difference between what is discussed in Genesis 2:5-6, and what is discussed in Genesis 1: 11-12. If we discount the framework interpretation and see Genesis 2 as an expansion of Day 6 of the Creation week, then it is clear that the context, as Irons and Kline have pointed out, is for the cultivation of crops by Man. In other words, these shrubs and herbs of the fields are cultivated plants, as opposed to the generic vegetation of Day 3. It is a different episode altogether from "Day 3" but rather focuses on the Day 6 planting of Eden as the background for the creation of Man.

Once we see the events in Genesis 2 this way, then Irons' and Kline's point here falls apart. Since Genesis 2:5-6 does not pertain to "Day 3" of creation, therefore it says nothing about that episode, including the "principle of continuity." The Day 6 creating of ordinary means for watering for the cultivated plants and so on was due to the fact that Man must live by ordinary providence in his everyday life. Thus, this "principle" applies only when Man comes into the picture in Day 6, not prior to that.

Irons' and Kline's case here for the Framework view falls apart. In fact, that principle is actually question begging. For only if one holds to the Framework view can one claim that Genesis 2:5-6 to be a recapitulation of "Day 3" of creation, and only if one sees recapitulation will one argue for the "principle" which in turn proves the Framework view. When one actually looks at the details however, the supposed recapitulation however doesn't hold up.

Reformed ministers, and Science!

Dr. R. Scott Clark in one his more recent Heidelcasts posted on the topic of "Science," with a particular focus on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. In summary, Clark was not particularly impressed with either man, seeing them as entertainers rather than actual scientists.

In his book Recovering the Reformed Confessions, Clark poked at the idea of 6-24 creation days. Clark does not so much address the issue whether 6-24 days is right or wrong, but rather that the insistence that each day must be 24 hours, using 6-24 as a boundary marker for orthodoxy, is a symptom of what he terms the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC) (pp. 47-50). Clark in that book demurs from stating his position on the creation days, but rather thinks that 6-24 cannot be a boundary marker because its insistence stems from Seventh-Day Adventism and Fundamentalism, and it would exclude Reformers teachers like Charles Hodge while including Seventh-Day Adventists (p. 50).

The point of this post here is not to address the issues of confessionalism and boundary markers, except to point out that it is possible to have 6-24 as a boundary marker without excluding people like Charles Hodge as being "non-Reformed." The point here is rather to state something which seems to me to be a big problem within Reformed circles: a rather strange ignorance of the modern YEC (Young Earth Creationist) arguments. It is one thing to reject YEC as a position; it is another to be ignorant of what its proponents are teaching.

My seminary, WSCal, teaches the Framework Hypothesis, alongside other views. The professor who teaches it is convinced of the truth of the Framework view, and that is fine. As someone who rejects the Framework view, it is my obligation to understand that view fairly and represent it fairly, and I have tried to learn as much as I can. That said, the portrayal of YEC in return, or even just 6-24, has been rather abysmal. I have read the OPC Creation Report, and have recently purchased a book entitled The Genesis Debate where J. Ligon Duncan II and David Hall presented the 6-24 position. Every single time so far, I have been sorely disappointed in the portrayal of the 6-24 position. The basic argument for 6-24 is presented, but they are seldom the strongest arguments, neither are the rebuttals to the opposing viewpoints strong and convincing. Against the "Day-Age" proponents Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer, Duncan and Hall might as well roll over and play dead. Such is the quality of their "response" that it might as well have not been written.

To be sure, the YEC camp does have a lot of anti-intellectuals and a lot of entertainers within her. Much of what considers itself "YEC literature" is not worth the paper it is printed on, or the memory space it is stored in. Even publications by ministries like Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) are often shallow, which is understandable given they are appealing to the masses. For those of us who want something solid, we have to sift through much of the "chaff" to get the wheat of actual substantial scientific argumentations. But once we actually get the substantial arguments, they actually do pack a powerful punch for 6-24 in particular and YEC in general.

Dr. Clark picked on Ken Ham as an entertainer. I am not going to defend Ham, because in actual fact, he is in some sense a sort of entertainer. Of course in mitigation, he is a popularizer of Creation Science, so I guess entertainment comes with the territory. That said, if one wants to actually deal with the YEC position, Ken Ham is a soft target. Why not deal with YEC scientists who actually are scientists? Let me introduce a couple to Dr. Clark:

(1) Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D (Spectroscopy, Physical Chemistry)

Some 'secular' publications:

• J.D. Sarfati, G.R. Burns, and K.R. Morgan: ‘Tetraphosphorus tetraselenide: crystalline and amorphous phases analysed by X-ray diffraction, Raman and magic angle spinning ³¹P NMR spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry’, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 188(1-2):93–97, 2 July 1995 | doi:10.1016/0022-3093(95)00093-3.
• J.D. Sarfati and G.R. Burns: ‘The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe₃ and CuISe₃’, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy 50(12):2125–2136, November 1994 | doi:10.1016/0584-8539(94)00176-6.

(2) A/Prof John Harnett, Ph.D. (Physics)

Some 'secular' publications:

• Hartnett, J.G., The distance modulus determined from Carmeli’s cosmology fits the accelerating universe data of the high-redshift type Ia supernovae without dark matter, Found. Phys. 36(6):839–861, June 2006.
• Hartnett, J.G., Spiral galaxy rotation curves determined from Carmelian general relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45(11):2118–2136, November 2006.
• Hartnett, J.G., Tobar, M.E., Properties of gravitational waves in Cosmological general relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45(11):2181–2190, November 2006.

(3) David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D. (Plant physiology)

Some 'secular' publications:

• Catchpoole, D.W. and Blair, G.J. (1990). Forage tree legumes.; I. Productivity and N economy of Leucaena, Gliricidia, Calliandra and Sesbania and tree/green panic mixtures. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41(3):521–530.
• Silsbury, J.H., Catchpoole, D.W. and Wallace, W. (1986). Effects of Nitrate and Ammonium on Nitrogenase (C₂H₂ Reduction) Activity of Swards of Subterranean Clover, Trifolium subterraneum L. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13(2):257–273

The main point, and the sad point, is that Reformed literature on the topic of origins show little if any familiarity with the modern YEC position. It is a strange thing indeed when a bunch of ministers come together to discuss science and the issue of origins, without any of them (so far) showing sufficiently knowledge or familiarity to even deal with the issues fairly. In point of fact, many Reformed ministers have little knowledge of science, being trained in the Arts. As someone who had studied for a career in science before switching, I am appalled at how the origins debate is carried out.

While I am not a Framework advocate, I can see one reason why someone might hold to it: It solves the problem of dealing with the scientific issues involved, by removing Genesis 1 from being subject to any form of verification or falsification. This is not to say that this is necessarily the motive behind anyone who holds to the Framework position, but it would definitely be an appealing one for those who are basically scientifically untrained. That said, the way forward should be for the Reformed churches to acquire people who actually know the science involved, and deal with the issues head on. Having a podcast to throw pot-shots on soft targets like Ken Ham doesn't actually advance the discussion. So what even if Ken Ham is discredited? YEC does not live and die with the credibility of one popularizer! And even if one were to use the SDA and Fundamentalism origin canard, it is a mere genetic fallacy. Despite the misrepresentations of Marsden and others, YEC in general did not come into being through SDA and Fundamentalism. Such is historical revisionism. Was Bishop Usshur a SDA, or a Fundamentalist? Read the Reformation and post-Reformation literature, and you will find many who subscribe to the idea that the earth was about 6000 years old. Usshur was NOT an abnormality in his dealings on the Age of the Earth. That does not say that the Reformation and post-Reformation scholars were necessarily right, but it shows that the historical development of the various positions concerning the length of the creation days and the age of the earth is much more complex than the simplistic picture painted by people like Marsden.

It would be great if one day the YEC 6-24 position is better represented. Until then, I think ministers should stop throwing pot-shots at "science."

Philokalia and Eastern Orthodox spirituality

In modern-day Evangelicalism, the issue of contemplative spirituality has come to the fore. People like Thomas Merton, M. Basil Pennington, Thomas Keating (Roman Catholics) and Richard Foster (Evangelical) have turned to the East in their search for spirituality. One possible stop point is that of Eastern Orthodox spirituality, with its idea of centering (contemplative) prayer and spiritual directors. Eastern Orthodox spirituality has a veneer of being Christian since it is practiced in the "Christian East," which for non-discerning Evangelicals means it is an acceptable Christian alternative.

The sourcebook for Eastern Orthodox spirituality is the Philokalia, a collection of writings from theologians and mystics in the East in the Hesychist tradition till the 18th century. Beginning with the Desert Fathers, and also the orthodox Eastern teachers like the Cappodocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus), the evolving Eastern spirituality soon had a center at Mt. Athos, where generations of monks practiced and refined the monastics practices from its Neo-Platonic root.

Just because something has a long history and tradition does not mean that it is right. As heirs of the Reformers, we Protestants hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, I would have to post this caveat in light of the many Radical biblicists in the modern church: Sola Scriptura is a principle of appeal to authority. It is NOT an appeal to methodology. Many biblicists practice Solo Scriptura, in which there is an appeal to Scripture without the actual need to engage with what it says IN CONTEXT. They think that the mere citation of verses with some surface similarity to their position(s) is sufficient, a method used by the heretic Charles Finney for example to deny doctrine such as total depravity. My latest interaction with biblicists has shown me how terrible the situation is within the corpse of Evangelicalism.

The main issue here is that Eastern spirituality is essentially heretical. It is a Neo-Platonic scheme of ascension towards God. The only difference between that and the Neo-Platonism in Western spirituality is the distinction between God's essence (being) and His energies (works). Deification or theosis, which is the end game for Eastern spirituality, is participation in God's energies not in His essence, thus there is no ontological fusion with God's essence per se, although it is to be questioned how much this distinction holds in practice.

Eastern Orthodoxy has a relatively simple story. Humanity is made after God's image and created good. However, Man chose to sin. This "ancestral sin" however is not original sin and is not transmitted to Adam's posterity as such. The faculty of beholding God is the nous, or the mind's "eye of the soul" [Allyne Smith, Philokalia, The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts: Selections Annotated and Explained (trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Bishop Kallistos Ware; Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths, 2012), xi], which is darkened by the Fall but otherwise still functional. Salvation in Eastern Orthodoxy is not to avert God's wrath, but rather to behold God through the usage of the spiritual discipline of contemplative prayer, which would bring one to theosis.

The contrast between the Scriptures and Eastern Orthodoxy can be seen as follows:

	Eastern Orthodoxy	Biblical view
Goal of Man	Theosis: Participation in the Divine (p. xiii)	Glorification: Enjoy and worship God in our transformed yet still creaturely bodies
Nature of the Fall	Darkened mind (nous), but only impaired; sickened, not dead (pp. xi, 178)	Radically depraved sinners totally corrupt in all their faculties
Nature of Sin	Sin is only in sinful acts, alien to human nature (pp. 28, 126); moral	Fallen nature of Man; forensic
How to be saved	Grow towards theosis, through spiritual disciplines and contemplative prayer	Justification by grace alone through faith alone
Individual or Corporate	Corporate setting. Spiritual directors required for growth towards theosis (p. 21)	Individual
Nature of salvation	Synergistic (Man needs to cooperate with God) (p. 96)	Monergistic (God alone saves)
How Jesus saves	Invoking Jesus' name in the "Jesus' Prayer" results in Christ burning up the impurity within the nous of the sincere believer practicing the prayer in order to grow towards theosis. (p. 113)	Meriting the righteousness in His life and death on the Cross, so as to die as an expiation and propitiation for the sins of all who repent and have faith in Him as their Savior
Our part in salvation	Believers ought to purify the nous from sin, and keep it from sin in the future (p. 52). Also, imitating the life of Christ in this world is needed (p. 209)	Empty hand of faith, i.e. nothing

Eastern Orthodoxy is fundamentally Pelagian, and it makes little difference if they do not think in those categories. Just like sin is objective meaning sin is sin regardless of what others think about it, Eastern Orthodoxy is Pelagian even though Eastern Orthodoxy do not have the categories for thinking in that manner. In other words, it is Eastern Orthodoxy's fault for misreading the Scriptures so badly they cannot think in forensic categories.

Eastern Orthodox spirituality flows from its anti-biblical teachings. It is a fundamentally Neo-Platonic ascent towards God. The problem is impurity of the mind's eye or nous, which is not much different from the Neo-Platonic problem being that of finitude. Sin is a creaturely problem, and the solution is clothing finitude up with the divine. We see here the rather obvious difference between Eastern Orthodox view of theosis and the biblical view of glorification. In theosis, one participates in something divine, which even using the essence-energies distinction, still has the creature in some sense participating in the Creator. In the biblical view of glorification however, the glorified saint does not ever "participate" in anything divine. Rather, he is made like Christ as the perfect image (ectype) of God. Christlikeness is the eschatological telos which Adam was made for, if Adam had not fallen, he would have progressed to be the perfect image and likeness of God. In glorification, the saint is made into the perfect eschatological image of God. An image however is still an image. We are like Christ in His glorified humanity, but His divine nature is always out of bounds to us. Finitum non capax infiniti; the finite cannot contain the infinite. Even in our glorified state, we are still creatures. It is easy here to see what's wrong with theosis. Even with the qualifications made by the essence-energies distinction, there is still a disturbing idea of participating in the divine, instead of in the image of the divine in Christ's glorified humanity.

The practice of Eastern spirituality arise from their unbiblical view of sin and salvation, and thus cannot be just taken and "contextualized" for Christians. Here are some choice quotes about the nature of prayer:

"The essence of prayer, then, is the mental ascent to God from the heart." -Theophan the Recluse, The Duty Also of Those Living in the World (p. 32)

"Prayer is a great blessing, and it embraces all blessings, for it purifies the heart..." -St. Hesychios the Priest, I,On Watchfulness and Holiness, Sec. 62 (p. 41)

For through unceasing prayer and the study of the divine Scriptures the soul's noetic eyes are opened" -Abba Philemon, II, A Discourse on Abba Philemon (p. 87)

Prayer in Eastern Orthodox spirituality is a human work required for salvation, not a means of grace. The "Jesus Prayer" is normally a single phrase in which the person praying it says "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" (p. 108) and then repeats it over and over again like a mantra (p. 107). As the chart shows, the Jesus' Prayer basically is their idea of how they can invoke Christ's name for Him to save them, a practice which totally misunderstands the idea of calling upon Jesus' name for salvation in the Scriptures.

Eastern Orthodox spirituality is integral to their unbiblical system of doctrine, and thus the practices cannot be divorced from the underlying theology. Evangelicals who think they can take those practices and use them are playing with fire. There is simply no way one can say that they trust in Christ's work alone for their salvation, and then deny it with these practices which are intended as cooperative work towards one's own salvation. There is little difference between the idea of one's "ascetic efforts in prayer" being "designed to earn merit," and "our cooperation with God in protecting the grace of prayer that God gives to us" (p. 96). Both ways, Man has to do something to be saved, and thus Eastern Orthodox spiritual disciplines are still meritorious. Anyone who borrows from those practices therefore has mocked the death of Christ, and spat on His face, and needs to repent of this grievous sin against God.

Thinking with their kidneys...

Over at a previous blog post, some guy called "Darrel" decided to take pot shots at the entire post. The fascinating thing for me in the entire exchange is how much he is trying to make it all about me, while I want to focus purely on the issues. It fascinates me that someone thinks he can claim that the entire post is "mostly useless philosophical nonsense," and then begin to whine over and over again when I actually push back and call him on the mat for such accusations. One side it seems can make ALL the accusations they want, but then of course, the same privilege is not to be extended to me. After interacting with him, and seeing how he sees the exchange as "beneficial," I wonder if I should have applied Prov. 26:4 since he is now wise in his own eyes, but then, I don't begin interacting with my critics as if they were fools from the beginning.

The problem with at least some if not many professing believers is that they have bought into the zeitgeist of this era. Thinking has now been replaced with feeling, of which the kidney is the organ of emotions in the OT (And for those who want to dispute that, go look at the word in Hebrew in places like Job 19:27, Ps. 7:10, 26:2). Whereas the proper way is to deal with the substance of the arguments, now all one has to do it seems is to deny the proposition(s) without putting forward a viable counter-argument, and then go immediately to accusations of "hate" etc. Am I always right in what I claim? Probably not. But that's not the point. The point is that one actually has to deal with the real issues, not passive-aggressively claim that one is teachable yet refusing to actually deal with what the text is saying. In our current real-life example, "Darrel" has refused to actually deal with the brief exegesis of Eph. 4:11, as if asserting over and over again that the text is about individual spiritual gifts is enough as long as one does it over and over again. This is the same tactic the homosexual lobby does in society, and it seems at least some professing Christians have imbibed on the very same zeitgeist.

The sad fact is that it is highly likely that such people make up a majority of professing believers. That is why the Church as a whole is in such a sorry state. People it seems can't actually deal with actual arguments. They don't know logic, and thus they can't even parse out a syllogism even if their lives depended on it. We see this very clearly in our example, that when I briefly exegeted Eph. 4:11, the argument I posted was that it speaks about God's gifts to the Church, the Body of Christ. That is the entire point I was making, and "Darrel" completely missed that point. When I speak about the distinction between "gifts" and "offices," I first used the example of women as an example, and then, when he didn't get it, I spoke of gifted men living in sin. The main point I am driving at is that the qualifications for ministers goes MORE than mere gifts, and thus there IS a distinction between "gifts" and "offices." Yet, "Darrel" continues to miss the point. Do others also see the problem here? The problem is that "Darrel" totally missed the syllogism I was constructing. This shows how strangely illogical at least some if not many people are. It seems that even if I were to lay out the syllogism in clear propositional form with premises and conclusions, those same people will still miss the force of the syllogisms. That is why I say that some if not many people can't even parse a syllogism even if their lives depended on it.

That brings us back to the sad fact that many people can't think. They think with their feelings, they confuse people with issues, and then violate Mt. 7:1 over and over again as they emote, and emote, and emote, all the while portraying their ignorance for all to see. (It is one thing to disagree with me. I do not claim to have all the answers and I may be wrong. But it is another thing when one cannot understand the points I am making, and then through irrational incomprehension misrepresent them and attack me personally.) The real question therefore is: How can ministry be done to a people like these, a people irrational and illogical? To a people thinking with their kidneys, only God can work the miracle of giving them new sight, and we must pray for that to happen.

Do not forbid speaking in tongues?

So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

1 Cor. 14:39 is one key text for reformed charismatics, who claim to be following the Scriptures when they promote the continuation of the charismata. Followers of the hyper-Calvinist Vincent Cheung likewise hold to this view, which is really interesting because here we have the quest for illegitimate religious experience (QIRE) meeting the quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC), otherwise known as Rationalism.

The problem with the usage of verses like 1 Cor. 14:39 is that such usage of scripture texts are nothing more than mere acontextual proof-texting. There is nothing worse than trying to establish a doctrine with texts divorced from their contexts. Using the same hermeneutical principle, we could hold to the following:

1. Christians should never take oaths (c.f. Mt. 5:34)
2. Christians should not resist evil at all (c.f. Mt. 5:36-42)
3. When sacked by your boss, a believer can take revenge by changing the record books to his boss' disadvantage in order to curry favor with others (c.f. Lk. 16:1-8)
4. Believers cannot eat any food that was strangled or had even a bit of blood in it, i.e Kosher (c.f. Acts 15:20b)
5. Christians ought to greet each other with a holy kiss every service (c.f. Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26). And I think Paul meant it literally, not figuratively.
6. Women who are believers must keep their heads covered at all times during the service, and not cut their heart short, for such is a disgrace (c.f. 1 Cor. 11: 2-16). Again, Paul meant it literally when he penned those words.
7. If a believer is sick, he ought to confess his sins and pray for others, then he will be healed (Jas. 5:16). The word ὅπως is used followed by a subjunctive indicating a purpose or result clause. That means that a person who confesses his sins and pray for others ought to be healed.

My point should be evident by now. Merely citing Scripture without accounting for its context does not prove anything at all. In the case of the holy kiss and head coverings, understanding its historical situated-ness is the key to understanding the applicability of the commands for our time.

Likewise, when we deal with the sign-gifts, it is extremely simplistic to merely quote 1 Cor. 14:39, as if Cessationists have not read that text before or noticed it was there. Repeating 1 Cor. 14: 39 as a mantra over and over again is not an argument! One has to understand the text in its historical or rather redemptive-historical context before understanding how such an imperative applies to us. If we understand the sign-gifts to be revelatory, and as revelation it must end with the close of the canonical era (c.f. Heb. 1:1-2), then we understand the imperative of 1 Cor. 14:39 to be a past tensed imperative. In other words, through the passage of time, the command is applicable now NOT as "do not forbid the present speaking in tongues," but rather "do not forbid listening to the past speech of tongues and prophecy." No Reformed Cessationist have ignored this imperative, and thus none of us have violated 1 Cor. 14:39. On the contrary, it is the Charismatics who have violated 1 Cor. 14:39 in essence, by ignoring the clear revelation of the finality of New Testament revelation (Heb. 1:1-2).

Interestingly enough, reformed charismatics (mostly baptists) hone in to 1 Cor. 14:39, yet the much clearer commands in other parts of Scripture are ignored, like the following:

1. Churches ought to have appointed (i.e. ordained) elders (c.f. Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5). The elders are appointed by someone else, not self-appointed. Neither are they merely asked to be an elder, but appointed to do so.
2. Churches ought to have fraternal relations with other churches (cf Phm 1:1, 2 Jn 1:13), especially in diaconal assistance.
3. In dealing with doctrinal controversies, it is right and proper to appeal to a church council, as we can see in Acts 15. Such a council has the authority to pass down binding decrees to the local churches.

It is surely illustrative how reformed charismatics are so enamored of the imperative of 1 Cor. 14:39, while ignoring the other clearer imperatives of Scripture on church polity. But back to the topic, do we forbid speaking in tongues? No, we do not forbid the continual validity of the past revelations (which included tongues) as inscribed in the Scriptures, so we have not forbidden the speech of tongues, and as such we have followed 1 Cor. 14:39.

Questions regarding ministry and education

[See also Pastors and Seminary Education].

Q: Is seminary necessary for those going into ministry?
A: A seminary education, or the equivalent, is necessary for going into ministry.

Q: Why is seminary education, or its equivalent, necessary?
A: Ministry deals with issues of spiritual life and death. Just like a doctor requires training in dealing with bodily ailments, so a minister requires training in dealing with spiritual ailments.

Q: Isn't a heart of caring for people and a life of piety towards God in prayer and reading His Word sufficient?
A: No. Just as a doctor who cares for people and who interacts with doctors still requires further education and on the job training, so likewise a person who cares for others and who is pious still requires seminary and other ministerial training.

Q: But weren't the apostles unschooled, and thus isn't a requirement of seminary education an addition to the Bible?
A: No. The apostles had personal "seminary" level training with Jesus for 3 intensive years, and even after that, their training was not complete until Pentecost. Paul too went into Arabia for 3 years after his conversion to re-study the Scriptures, and before that he had trained under Gamaliel.

Q: But God works even in the ministries of those who are unlearned.
A: God also used a donkey to rebuke Balaam, but we don't go around looking for talking donkeys. God used a big fish to discipline Jonah, but we don't look for big fishes to execute church discipline. Just because God uses something does not mean that we should be content and disregard the perceptive will of God.

Q: Does that mean that someone who is not seminary trained (or the equivalent) should not go into ministry?
A: Yes. Since ministry involves issues of spiritual life and death, it is better not to go into ministry untrained for the task. God can and does use our imperfect service, but we should not be pragmatists and should follow God's perceptive will instead of presuming upon Him.

Q: Does this imply that full knowledge is required for ministry?
A: No. All Christians, including ministers, are still learning. But it's a sin to willfully neglect what has been known, the traditions of the Church, and thus ignore the collective knowledge, wisdom and insights of the saints, and attempt to minister accordingly. Just like doctors do not have full knowledge and should be ever learning, so likewise ministers should be adequately trained, and yet still continue learning.

Q: What do we say then of a church without adequately trained ministers?
A: It is a church without adequately trained shepherds, who ought to get training if and as soon as possible so as to avoid potential cases of pastoral malpractice.

Q: Are there any problems with a loving pastor who is not adequately trained?
A: Yes. Precisely because he cares for the flock and presumably the flock loves him, he has great influence over the sheep. If he unknowingly promotes error, the flock will follow him too because they trust him. There is nothing more dangerous than love (and zeal) without knowledge.

Unbelievable: Young, Restless, ... and no longer Reformed

Recently, the Unbeliever podcast by Justin Brierley hosted a discussion of Dr. James White with former New-Calvinist Austin Fisher, who wrote a book of why he has left the New Calvinist movement. The podcast can be listened to here.

The Gospel and theories of creation

The issue of the views of creation, while certainly academic, is not merely academic. Behind the various views lie major ramifications for faith and life. Here I would like to deal with the issue of history.

The Genesis accounts and the whole section normally termed "primeval history" (Gen. 1-11) are dealt with in various ways by advocates of the various creation theories. Key among many who deny 6-24 creation is relegating the creation account to some form of poetry or allegory. The best one could do was to affirm its overall historicity without at the same time holding to the necessary historicity of its parts, which is what the Framework view does with the Genesis account.

The main reason why creation is so important is because of what it does to history. If the Genesis accounts are fully historical, then what that implies for history is that world history actually begins the way the Bible says it would. Conversely, if the Genesis accounts are not in some sense historical, then that would tend to lead towards the idea that world history and redemptive history are at best parallel tracks. If we embrace the idea of two parallel histories, which are not always separate but ontologically independent of each other, then it will create problems for the universality of the Christian faith and evangelism.

The issue here is very simple: For example, I am non-white Chinese. Christianity as it comes to us is a "white-man's religion." Furthermore, Christian missionaries were often flawed and sometimes partook of the sins of the Western imperial powers in the 19th century as they bullied China into submission. The question therefore is: Why should the Chinese embrace Christianity, a religion historically (and I would certainly say wrongly) associated with imperialism and oppression?

There are various reasons that can be offered for why Chinese (for our example) should be Christians. The flimsiest reason is that it works; it provides for one's subjective spiritual and/or material needs. The "God-shaped hole" in one's heart after all *just* needs to be filled. The problem with this is that emotions are unreliable, and while I do believe that there is some sort of "God-shaped hole," in the sense that Man is made for God, people do not necessarily know or feel what they actually need, as the happy atheist will testify. The one who bases his faith on feelings of spirituality is like the shallow soil. When the plant grows up and unfavorable conditions come (which can be more than just persecution and also include one's emotional states), the plant of the Gospel will die in his heart and he will certainly fall away.

The second reason given for embracing Christianity, despite its alien origins, is that it speaks to the sin condition that I see in myself. Correlative with that is the evidentialist apologetic methodology proving the existence of Jesus, His death and His resurrection. The reasons here are better as it focuses on Jesus and the Cross, and such is the focus of Evangelicalism as a whole. The main problem here is that the sin condition is in some sense subjective. It depends on the person being convicted of sin based upon a rather subjective Christian realization of sin. The second reason suffers from the similar problem of subjectivity, and gives Christianity the impression of a crutch for weaklings — only for those who feel their sin in the Christian way. Now of course, some sense of sin is unavoidable, but falling short of the ideal can be construed in other fashions as it is done in other religions like Buddhism, where "sin" is impersonal and can be outweighed by good works. And the proofs concerning Jesus and His death and resurrection, while powerful in their own right, can be twisted to support pantheistic notions of Christ and Man, something which was seen in early Gnostism and now in the New [Age] Spirituality.

The third reason for embracing Christianity is through an appeal to its intellectual prowess and consistency, or Christianity as a philosophy and worldview. Such would appeal to intellectuals and philosophers. With their sophisticated arguments, they are convinced that Christianity provides the best answers to the ultimate questions. Be they Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig, they are intellectually convinced of Christianity and its universality, arguing for Christian theism against unbelief. Now this has much more virtue than the previous two since it appeals to more objective issues, and the use of evidentialist claims about Jesus here are more objective because they are not left drifting but correlated to a bunch of other philosophical and theological arguments for the Christian faith. Yet, the weakness here comes from its strength, its intellectual rigor, as it almost made Christianity the religion of Christian intellectuals and philosophers, or at the very least split Christians into two camps: the uninitiated, and the intellectuals. Lastly, the methodology itself has a flaw in the following: What happens if one day some philosopher suddenly proves (at least for a time) that Christianity is not the best and most rational system? Are we rationalists that only follow Christ to the extent that Christianity makes sense to us?

If we hold to the parallel tracks of history, it is not much of a surprise if non-Christians see the other track as irrelevant to "normal life." From a non-Christian non-white point of view, the claims of Christianity are merely just that, claims. Even if true, they have no relation to him and his history. After all, in the prevailing secular metanarrative, life evolved from non-life, humans evolved from primeval apes, and cultures and civilization develop naturally. Eastern non-materialists could conceivably accept supernatural occurrences in the history of Israel for example, but what has that got to do with *MY* country and culture? The history of China goes back 4000 years, so why should we listen to the "white men" who were living in caves while we were building great cities?

That is why the whole issue of creation is so important, because it attacks the supposed autonomous histories of cultures, even those as ancient as China's (or Egypt's). Primeval history especially in the table of nations of Genesis 10 established the historical basis for all of Christianity's claims of universality. It is because there is a real objective historical basis for sin that sin is sin and deserves damnation. It matters not whether someone is happier after he has jettisoned his faith, for feelings often deceive. It matters not whether one feels sinful, it matters not whether one feels that Christianity is meeting his need, it matters not whether he feels a "God-sized hole" in his heart. All these don't matter! It is because Christianity is historically objectively true on the origins of Man, that it is objectively true regarding everything else it teaches. No one for example dispute the fact of gravity (except theoretically). In the same way, Christian history should be claiming that level of truth.

Only a proper grasp of the historicity of the Genesis account will avoid a parallel track system of two histories, and only that can solve the problem of the universal claim of Christianity (not its universal appeal). If one holds to some version of the dual system of histories, then why would anyone be interested in hearing just another "abstract theory," especially during the times when they feel self=fulfilled?

It is because of this that I find holding to 6-24 creation necessary. The other views, while held to sincerely, do not seem capable of adequately answering the problem of universality. Why should a particular faith be universally applicable? Experience, guilt, miraculous evidences of the 1st century AD, and rationality all bypass the history of other cultures and peoples, and thus cut redemptive history from other cultures and people God did not work with in the Bible..

Reductio Ad Absurdum and Common Sense

[Previous post here]

The issue of "common sense" and "properly basic beliefs" is surely astonishing in light of the post-modern revolution. It seems that a more sophisticated natural theology and philosophy of sorts for some people is preferable to staring down the abyss of the failure of human philosophy of any kind. The failure of postmoderneity to construct a positive system does not imply that their negative critiques can be discarded. One cannot discount skeptical arguments just because skepticism fails to form a coherent philosophy (and it can't).

The problem with "common sense" is not that "common sense" is at some times useful, or that it should be discounted altogether. To discount "common sense" in toto is self-refuting. The question is not whether "common sense" is valid in some instances, but whether it can be used in reasoning about the grounds of knowledge and of knowing. In other words, to deny the validity of "common sense" for all instances is not self-contradictory.

The problems with appeal to "properly basic beliefs" is that it eliminates questions concerning these beliefs. Such beliefs, being "properly basic," cannot be questioned. However, upon what basis can we not question such beliefs? This is where some appeal to "common sense" is brought in. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, "common sense" is no proof for anything. To extrapolate from the usefulness of "common sense" in some instances to its usefulness in others is unwarranted. This is not to mention that "common sense" changes depending on one's expectations. Before the advent of quantum physics, what is "common-sensical" in science is different from what is "common-sensical" now. Nobody now bats an eyelid in speaking about photons or matter waves, but it was almost inconceivable for those reared in the Newtonian mechanical paradigm. So what exactly is "common-sensical"?

Speaking about "properly basic beliefs," it borrows a lot from Christianity and the Christian-influenced Western zeitgeist. None of this talk about "properly basic beliefs" will make sense in a non-Western culture, where for example a denial of the reality of the external world is considered "common-sensical." In this light, it should be interesting for "Reformed Epistemology" if they would get out of its cultural zone and actually engage (not just discount) Eastern philosophers, NOT Western-influenced Eastern philosophers. Such an engagement should prove that "properly basic beliefs" don't exist as such.

Even more homosexual bigotry!

Over in England, it seems some homosexuals have nothing better to do with their time. The homosexual "couple" Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow is suing the British government in an attempt to force churches to host homosexual "weddings." According to them, they sue because they want Christians to "recognize them" and this is what they want. Excuse me?! Since when do they have the right to force people to "recognize" their union as legitimate, and force people to give them what they want?

The problem with some homosexuals and especially the activists is that they think they deserve super rights. They are asking for rights that no one else has. They want the right to redefine marriage, the right to force people to celebrate their "union," the right to punish anyone who speaks out against them, and the list goes on. All the while, they are denying the rights of everyone else to hold to and act on their beliefs concerning the definition of marriage; they are denying the right of people to believe that homosexuality is sinful, they are denying the right of others to disagree with their promotion of wickedness, or even call it "wicked." In the name of "rights," they trample on the rights of everyone else.

This "couple" claim that they want to have a church wedding, and therefore they have a right to it. This is about the most narcissistic statement ever. All of us have many things we want. I want homosexual unions to be outlawed, so why aren't they promoting my right to have that want fulfilled?

As Dr. James White says, the homosexual agenda is not for equal rights, but for über rights. As a group, homosexual activists are duplicitous, vicious and hypocritical, and this alone should discredit their cause in society.

On Pietism: Why I am not enamored of the Korean Church

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.

“‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’(Rev. 3:1-6)

Korean Christianity is often trumpeted as a model for world Evangelical Christianity. Korean Christians typically wake up early in the morning to pray for about 2 hours, and are devout Christians fervent for evangelism and missions, sending many missionaries around the world. Some of them even do missions where they emulate the 72 disciples of Jesus (Lk. 10:1-12), going from town to town witnessing about Christ while bringing no money and no food, relying on the people that they meet to give them shelter and food.

Nevertheless, I am not enamored of Korean Christianity. Korean Christianity in my opinion in general partakes of the same weakness of the Church of Sardis, and serious fault lines lie just beneath its surface. This is not to discount the good that Korean Christianity has done in the world, but to what extent such is beneficial to Christianity in the long term is questionable.

I am sure there will be many who would be horrified by my claim, and I fully understand that. Such comes from hearts that have been leavened by pietism, which had infected all of world Christianity through the Evangelical missions of the 18th-20th centuries. Piety, or outward godliness, has been elevated to a measure of prominence. From Philipp Jakob Spener, the founder of the Pietist movement within Lutheranism, to John Wesley, who brought pietism into Evangelicalism, to Charles Finney all the way to Rick Warren, with his "deeds, not creeds" mantra, pietism has infected much of world Christianity to the extent that to deny Pietism seems to be denying Christianity itself. It is so ingrained into the Christian consciousness that it takes radical surgery of the heart to remove it.

We would look at the practice of Korean Christianity, and then examine its flaws.

Prayer

The first issue we want to examine is the idea of prayer. The problem with prayer is not that prayer is bad, but that prayer is meant to function as a means of grace. In other words, prayer is the place where we meet God through His Word. In other words, it is a confession of weaknesses not of strength. Thus the whole idea of spending 2 hours in prayer could be confused with godliness, as if spending 2 hours daily in prayer is more godly than another person who spends 15 minutes in prayer! Don't get me wrong. Spending extended time in prayer before God is great. I loved the times when I have more than 1 hour in communion with God. All Christians should be encouraged to pray more often. But that is not the issue. The issue is when we use the time we have in prayer as a yardstick for measuring godliness. Suddenly, prayer becomes a measure of how godly one is. That is the whole point of portraying Korean Christians who spend 2 hours daily in prayer as a godly example. If the amount of time spent in prayer IS definitive of godliness, then the Pharisees ought to be considered very godly indeed. But we know they were whitewashed tombstones, clean only on the outside. So why are we putting people who spend hours in prayer up on a pedestal, as if those who spend the most hours in prayer are necessarily the godliest? The heretic Pelagius, who denied original sin, was probably one of the holiest monk in the early church. His denial of original sin was in the interest of motivating men to be godly, as he was trying to be. But, unless one is a Pelagian, anyone who claims to follow the historic Christian creeds must say that Pelagius is a heretic who is now in hellfire.

In the medieval era, medieval monks and nuns spent almost all the day in prayer and meditation, even confessing their sins to the extent that some of them flogged themselves. Prayer was regarded as a spiritual discipline then, as it is now in Evangelical pietism, and they were considered the epitome of godliness. Yet the most wicked sinners came from the monastic orders, like Johannes Tetzel and the many "holy" priests and cardinals who took part in the Inquisition, persecuting Christians who believed in the Gospel. Closer to the modern times, German Liberals like Friedrich Schleiermacher, Adolf von Harnack and Wilhelm Hermann were extremely devout Christians, at least externally. Besides Schleiermacher's questionable relationship with the married Eleonore Grunow, many German liberals were externally very devout. John G. Machen while he was studying for his doctorate was nearly taken in by the devout prayers of Wilhelm Hermann for example. So what do all these say about the idea of correlating godliness with prayer?

Speaking from experience, this promotion of prayer within the context of Evangelical pietism is probably the worst impediment to spiritual growth. Spending more time in prayer ironically creates spiritual pride, not necessarily because I was looking down on others who spent less time in prayer, but because I thought I was being more pleasing to God and knowing Him more. This "high" only lasted until the "crash" which came shortly afterwards. The more I strove in prayer, the worse off I was. While I was the youth Prayer IC in my first church I grew up in, I strove to grow deeper in prayer and tried implementing many programs for the youth to grow in prayer. I always felt that I was missing something, and was thus attracted to the growing "prayer warfare" stuff in the Third Wave Charismatic movement. As I was looking into those, my interest in prayer gradually disappeared, and the second year I was Prayer IC much less was done. Looking back, I saw my entrapment within the Pietism I grew up in, and how deadly it was for my spiritual walk in Christ. Ironically, the more one focuses on prayer, the less one would actually commune with God.

All of these just show how foolish we are to correlate prayer with godliness. Prayer is a sign of weakness, and we are all weak. It is never a sign of strength. Spending 2 hours in prayer is not more godly than spending 15 minutes in prayer. High-sounding words and elaborate phrases are no guarantee of closeness to God. Evangelicals might very well want to read some of the written prayers of the Roman liturgy, or even the Anglican liturgy. They are generally beautiful, regal in tone, mostly orthodox in theology, and would put many an Evangelical to shame for the comparative poverty of their own prayers. That does not imply that the ones penning them were actually godly though, although certainly some of them were.

Missions

Missions and evangelism are again good things that Christians ought to be engaged in. And we certainly owe Korean Christianity a debt in the amount of missionaries they send out regularly. Yet, we should realize that evangelism and missions in themselves are no guarantees of godliness. The Pharisees traversed land and sea to make one convert, and in the end made that guy twice a son of hell as he previously was (Mt. 23:15). The Counter-Reformation provoked a spate of Roman Catholic missions spearheaded by the Jesuits, and through their conversion of the natives of places like South America made those "converts" twice children of hell, and plunged the South American continent further into darkness for at least a century of two. Promising life, the Jesuits delivered death and damnation. Could one or two be saved through those missions? Perhaps, but that is in spite of the Jesuits through the scattered truths of the Gospel found in their messages or from the Scriptures themselves. Any true salvation accomplished in the Roman Catholic missions was achieved despite the Jesuits, not because of them.

Thus, we see that fervor in missions and evangelism is not correlative with true godliness. In fact, such fervor could very well be a desire to gain one's salvation, as it was in the person of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. Such "missions" are a sign of wickedness not of godliness.

Flaws in Korean Christianity

How Korean Christianity has evolved the way it did might not be purely because of the Gospel. The Korean culture also must be factored in. Thus for example, the "Beggars mission" should not be seen as something truly extraordinary if one understands Korean culture with its roving Buddhist monks. If the culture was very much spiritually-minded, spending 2 hours a day early in the morning praying is less spectacular than if such were to happen in a white congregation in materialistic New York today. Now, I am not denigrating 2 hours being spent in prayer, but I am saying that culture does play a part in how one's spirituality is expressed.

Once we can see that, we can begin to see the flaws underneath the veneer of vibrancy in Korean Christianity, starting with the most obvious: toleration of heresy.

The toleration of heresy comes in the form of Word-faith preacher David Yonggi Cho, the pastor of the Yoido Full Gospel Church, supposedly the largest church in the world. Cho is a rank heretic, promoting the idea that Christians can tap into a spiritual dimension of power to actualize their prayers into existence. That third dimension is accessible to everyone who has faith, including unbelievers, which is Cho's explanation of how other religions could perform healing. That Cho is a heretic beyond the pale of orthodoxy in any sense of the term is beyond doubt. The problem is that Korean Christians will not generally speak out against Cho. In one interaction I have had with a ethnic Korean Christian, he defended Cho, saying that there are true Christians in the Yoido Full Gospel Church. That person is a Reformed Christian, which only goes to show how perversive this toleration of rank heresy is within Korean Christianity. If even supposedly orthodox Reformed Korean Christians can DEFEND an outright heretic on the totally irrelevant claim that there are possibly true believers in his church, then we can see the scale of the problem within Korean Christianity.

This ties in to the main issue with Korean Christianity: a deficient doctrine of the church and its relation to salvation. Of course, this is not the problem with just Korean Christianity, but East Asian Christianity in general and world Evangelical Christianity to a slightly lesser extent. Korean Christianity continues not to have an idea of how a local Church is to operate with respects to those who claim to be believers, and no idea of how one is to manage the church in regards to the church's role as the pillar of the truth (1 Peter 3:15). That is why East Asian churches in general descend into moralism in practice, because discipline becomes limited to moral issues and only the rankest of heresies (i.e. denial of Jesus' deity). It does not take rocket science for someone to wrongly infer that Christianity is about moral living, when the churches will discipline someone for homosexuality, while winking at someone who just taught that faith is a force that can be used to extract power from the "third dimension," as if homosexuality is a worse sin than heresy! Let me just put this plainly: I would deem a person struggling with same-sex attraction (SSA) who attends church and the means of grace regularly to be godlier than an unrepentant pastor who promotes heresy, even though the latter prays 4 hours per day and is a loving husband of one wife!

Conclusion:

As I reject the unbiblical practices of the Singapore Church, so for similar reasons I am not enamored of the Korean Church. No church can be considered to be healthy until the infestations of Pietism among others is purged from within, and confessionalism takes root in its place. All external acts of piety are irrelevant to the discussion, and those who think that they are need to repent of their pietism.

[ADD: Yonggi Cho has recently been convicted of fraud, and the silence from Korean Christianity is deafening]

Conspiracy theories, and Anti-Semitism

Recently, I had to un-friend (and block) a guy whose FB screen name is Cado Odac, from Dallas, TX. I had to do so because that guy was promoting hatred against Jews on his FB page. Together with people like Robert Fort, a whole group of his friends decided to defend racism (against black and Orientals as well), attacking all non-whites with vitriol.

As part of his campaign to demonize the Jews, Cado posted this link to an attack on the Ashkenazi Jews and their supposed Kazhar ancestry. The whole article is anti-Semite to the core, based upon all sort of conspiracy theories that would make Dan Brown appear to be a novice. Jews are demonized as part of the New World Order who are out to destroy America, as if these white supremacists have not already destroyed America!

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they have a faulty view of Man and a faulty view of God. They elevate Man, or rather a group of men, to god-like status. Such a group of people are seen as malevolent and the incarnation of the Anti-Christ himself. They also have almost god-like power, able to implement their wicked schemes with great and brutal effect. On the other hand, they demote God. God it seems has not the power to restrain evil. God sees this great malevolent scheme of the ubermensch, stares in horror at it, and wrings his hands helplessly at the destruction it caused to "Christendom." God is not sovereign in all conspiracy theories, for this "god" is powerless and has allowed a group of men to usurp the right to dictate the direction of history.

Let's look at this hack job of an article. We note at the beginning that it has NO footnotes, no references at all. Furthermore, it quotes from.... you guess it... the virulently anti-Semitic fiction titled the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Any citation from the Protocols probably has as much authority as someone citing from the Da Vinci Code, or even less. Therefore, from the start, why would anyone want to actually take this waste of web space seriously?

As to its content, the entire thesis of Kazhar ancestry is disputed by many. But let's say we grant that for the sake of argument. I can even grant the supposed schemes of the "Kazhar Jews" to rule the world. What does that actually prove? NOTHING! Nothing at all!

As I have said, conspiracy theories suffer from an unbiblical elevation of man to god-like power and Satan-like maliciousness, and a diminishing of God to a powerless deity. These come into play here. So what if some "Kazhar Jews" made statements that show they wanted to control the world? First, are these individuals omnipotent? Who's sovereign here: the rulers of the world, or God? So what if they have all their grand plans of world domination? Can anything happen without God allowing it? Secondly, are these people human beings, or demons? Do they still have a remnant of the Imago Dei, or is the Imago Dei totally destroyed in the Fall? Also, is God still restraining the wickedness of men? And finally, what have the schemes of a few men, if true, have to do with an ENTIRE ethnic group? If those white supremacists were actually consistent with such ideas of collective punishment, they should be all hung and quartered for the crimes of the Imperialist powers against the blacks and Asians! Remember the Opium War, or the invasion of Beijing by the combined 8-nation armies at the turn of the 20th century, together with the massacre and rape of Chinese women by the Western armies?! Should the crimes of a few in the past be punished on the whole today, lots of whites ought to be killed, massacred and raped now!

Conspiracy theories, of whatever kind, ought to be discarded for these two reasons. Are there conspiracies? Yes. Do they succeed? Sometimes, if God allows. Are the conspirators demonspawn? No. Can they repent of their wickedness? Yes. Do they represent their entire race? NO! We should stop all conspiracy fear-mongering, and stop demonizing entire groups of people. Such a behavior is contrary to Christianity. And anti-Semitism is extremely wicked, for it is a travesty for someone to claim to follow Jesus the King of the Jews who is a Jew, and then turn around and hate the Jews.