Ο ΤΟΠΟΣ

I was sitting there in bible study Sunday night when someone mentioned a passage in Galatians. After glancing at the reference I continued to read down to verse 16:

2.16 εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς χριστὸν ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

Something popped out at me again. In my studies I have often come across the objective vs. subjective genitive issue as it pertains to πίστεως χριστοῦ and similar constructions, but I haven't investigated the matter in any great detail. I have also on occasion wondered whether our Western concept of 'justice' is a tainted (ethnocentric) view of what an ancient Hebrew may have had in mind. Part of that questioning was brought about by Louw and Nida's entry in their lexicon based on semantic domains. Their "a" entry for dikaio reads: to cause someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else - 'to put right with, to cause to be in a right relationship with.'

That didn't sound like legalese to me. Enter Mark D. Baker and his book Religious No More:

The contrast between the Hebrew relational sense of justice and our abstract concept of justice is striking at times. In Psalm 143, David admits that he is not just/righteous, but he appeals to God's justice/righteousness, asking God to not punish him and help him in his trouble (Psalm 143:2-3,11). If today I stood before a judge, admitted my guilt and then appealed to the judge's sense of justice, you would conclude I was not thinking straight. It would be the equivalent of asking the judge to give me the harshest punishment the law allows. I would not plead for justice; I would appeal to the judge's sense of mercy. But according to the Hebrew concept of justice, David's request for God to act justly makes perfect sense. David asks God to be just, faithful to God's pact of love with David, even though David has not acted faithfully/justly.

Therefore, in Galatians, when we encounter various words with the dikai root we should think of justice "primarily in terms of the covenant relationship to God and membership within the covenant community." Wright, in fact, suggests that "dikaiosynē is best translated as 'covenant membership' or 'covenant status'"

For me, that is a completely different way of thinking about 'justice.' I was brought up with all of the legal analogies; I had been acquitted. But there's more to it. Baker continues:

In Galatians, to be justified is not simply to be declared not guilty of having broken laws or to be placed in proper relationship with standards recorded in an impersonal code. To be justified is to be placed in proper relationship to God, to be made a full participant in the community of God's people. The individualistic image of a heavenly ledger is incorrect. (101-102)

Here's where Baker brings my two questions together, πίστεως χριστοῦ and justification:

Galatians does not focus on what humans must do to sit at the table, whether it be human works or human believing, but on what God has done to bring Jews and Gentiles together at one table (3:28) (105)

A different perspective indeed. Based on Baker's comments and a combination of Louw-Nida-Wright's definition of "dikaio," I offer a work-in-progress, expanded translation of Galatians 2.16:

Yet we know that a man is not put in covenant relationship by works of the law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. We have faith in Christ, so that we might be covenant members by means of Christ's faithfulness and not by works of the law--because no one is given covenant status by works of the law.

I'm still investigating...

So as my wife was blaring the new Mudcrutch CD in the family room, I was huddled up in the bedroom with a big plate of Cavatinni and garlic bread... hmm... garlic bread. But I wasn't in trouble. I was eagerly anticipating the RMCLive podcast where Virgil "the Vendetta" Vaduva and Sam "the Systemizer" Frost would face off in a no holds barred contest rivaling that of greats like Rowdy Roddy Piper and Hulk Hogan. Ok. So, it wasn't exactly like that... As one observer commented, it was more of a "love-fest." I couldn't help but hear the sweet refrains of Lyle Lovett singing "I love everybody." Ok. So, it wasn't quite that sappy either :)

It really was a great podcast. Sam, Jason and Virgil discussed some of the difficulties in communication, especially in an online setting. We often make assumptions about one another that are not entirely accurate, and then we argue against that "caricature." Sometimes we even define words differently, which can add to confusion. My respect for all three men has grown due to their willingness to work through these issues in a respectul and, yes, loving dialog. Click to listen to A Conversation with Virgil Vaduva

My CDs arrive today... and inside the package was hand-written note. Nice guys, eh?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as I was making the rounds this morning, I took a look at the Presence site and came across the Transmillennial 2008 brochure. Nestled between the bios of two speakers from Johannesburg (How cool is that?), I found The Redding Brothers. Their bio read:

The Redding Brothers believe that rock ‘n roll can save the world. After returning from their world tour, The Redding Brothers will integrate thoughtful and compelling lyrics with dynamic and vibrant acoustic sounds to create nothing less than a spiritual experience at Transmillennial 2008. Their songs explore the range of everything that it means to be human. When you listen, you'll find something that resonates with your life experience. You may even discover yourself being transformed.

Hmm... could it be? A "preterist" rock band? I googled the band and found their website. Sure enough...

Quick Facts

• Birthdays: Micah (November 11, 1981 in Charleston, WV); Josiah (August 19th, 1983 in Charleston, WV); Gabriel (February 11th, 1987 in Seattle, WA).


• All vegetarians.


• All libertarians.


• All preterists.


• All DIY maniacs.


• Founded their own record label in 2005, Brick & Stone Records.



• Have performed over 300 tour dates as of this writing.


• Are known for crazy stage lighting, on-stage stunts, climbing towers, etc.


• Wrote, recorded and released 52 songs consecutively over a 52 week period spanning April 2007-2008.


• Have been touring non-stop since 2003.


• Are known for their guerrilla gigs, self-promoted concerts in strange places.


• Have toured nationally and internationally.

Man, that is cool. What's even cooler, besides the fact that they're good, they've posted their tunes online. (They're free to stream.)

Perhaps they would be interested in playing at Truthvoice '09? They're much better than Rob Bell's old band, Virgil ;)

Diddley had harsh words for the direction black music had taken in recent years, telling Reuters that "gangsta" rap made his blood boil.

"I hate it. I call it rap-crap," Diddley said in a 1996 interview. "I can't seem to get my records played but they'll play all this garbage."

You still make my foot tap. RIP, fellow Gretsch lover :(

A few more hours rubbing and buffing and it will be ready for assembly... finally :)

Growing up in the churches of Christ, I assumed that we were the ones who had everything nailed down. Other brands of Christianity were just doing it wrong. Of course, the churches of Christ are not the only group who display this tendency. No one wants to be a part of the “wrong” group.

In any case, over the years my perspective has broadened. Instrumental music isn't a big deal to me. I would rather have a complete meal than a wafer. I wear jeans when I speak on Sunday mornings—sometimes, I even wear shorts and sandals. I would like to have every person involved in a discussion rather than listen to one guy's (my) monologue. My view of other Christians has changed, too. I was convinced that certain flavors of Christianity were destined for hell—not mine of course. But over time, I have learned that God is far more gracious than me. Durant said, “Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing; education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.” I am just thankful that I arrived at Durant's conclusion at a relatively young age.

So, now I am more interested in understanding others. What makes them tick? Why do they believe what they do? Recent discussions here at Planet Preterist have caused to me to make an effort to better understand fellow Christians who come from a different background. This past weekend I ran across an article entitled Reformed Apologetics: God Said It. It is a brief summary of the history and beliefs of some Reformed heavy-weights. I learned that both Van Til and Clark have ties to my home state. But of more importance, I began to see more clearly where my beliefs contrast at a fundamental level. (All of the following quotes are taken from the previously mentioned article.)

Charles Hodge wrote, “Nothing, therefore, can be more opposed to the whole teaching and spirit of the Bible, than this disposition to insist on philosophical proof of the articles of our faith. . . . There is no safety for us, therefore, but to remain within the limits which God has assigned to us. Let us rely on our senses, within the sphere of our sense perceptions; on our reason within the sphere of rational truths; and on God, and God alone, in all that relates to the things of God (48, 49).”

Along those lines, Hodge said that “reason must judge of the evidence by which a revelation is supported.” In other words, man's reason ultimately validates scripture. This does not sound especially “Reformed” to my ears, but, then again, that is not my tradition. “Basic to Calvin’s distinctive approach to apologetics is his strong doctrine of human sin. In his view, our fall into sin has corrupted our entire being, including our mind: 'the reason of our mind, wherever it may turn, is miserably subject to vanity' (2.2.25).” Other Calvinists would take issue with Hodge on this very point.

Kuyper wrote, “[Hodge] declares that the theologian must authenticate these truths. But then, of course, they are no truths, and only become such, when I authenticate them.” The article explains:

Kuyper specifically takes issue with Hodge’s belief that the special revelation of God in Scripture can and should be tested or validated using reason or natural revelation. Such a position fails to take into account the noetic effects of sin:

“If special revelation assumes that in consequence of sin the normal activity of the natural principium [that is, human reason] is disturbed, this implies of itself that the natural principium has lost its competency to judge” (381). Kuyper suggests that asking man to judge the validity of special revelation using natural knowledge is akin to asking a psychiatric patient to judge the validity of the psychiatrist’s method of treatment (381). Likewise, it is impossible to convince a person of the truth of the Christian position if he thinks his natural ability to determine truth is unimpaired. “Being as he is, he can do nothing else than dispute your special revelation every right of existence; to move him to a different judgment you should not reason with him, but change him in his consciousness; and since this is the fruit of regeneration, it does not lie with you, but with God” (383).

In other words, as a consequence of original sin and/or total depravity, man has a darkened intellect. Accordingly, his ability to reason cannot be trusted. (Apparently, as Kuyper pointed out, this applies to Calvinists like Hodge, too.) A person must be given the gift of faith before he can see the truth: Kuyper writes, “This is the reason why the arguments for the truth of the Scripture never avail anything. A person endowed with faith gradually will accept Scripture; if not so endowed he will never accept it, though he should be flooded with apologetics.”

The article goes on to state, “One of the chief defects of apologetics, according to Kuyper, is that the knowledge it produces is based on probabilities, not certainties. This is a problem because for Kuyper, as for Calvinists generally, certainty is of the essence of faith.”

In other words, one must start behind man—who is inherently defective because of sin. Kuyper, it seems, planted the seed for the presuppositionalists who would follow.

The article highlights some of Van Til's distinctive features:

[Van Til] agreed with the Common-Sense Realist view taught at Old Princeton that the validity of sense perception, logic, moral values, and the like was guaranteed to us by God’s creation of us and of the world. . . .

In Van Til’s view, the great mistake of [the Old Princeton] tradition was in using rationalistic arguments that concluded that the truths of Christianity are probably true. Van Til thought probabilistic arguments detracted from the certainty of faith and the absolute authority of Scripture as the written word of God. . . .

Van Til concludes That the argument for Christianity must therefore be that of presupposition. . . . The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself (298). . . .

Clark is summarized, in part:

Clark maintained that all that could truly be known was to be found in Scripture itself. In his view, knowledge of truth requires deductive proof, and nothing can be deduced from the uncertain facts of the natural world or of the human mind. Furthermore, inductive reasoning is unreliable, because “all inductive arguments are formal fallacies” when judged by the canons of deductive reasoning, and so cannot be used to arrive at truth. The only source of indisputable premises with which logic can work is the Bible. So, Clark argued, the infallible statements of Scripture provide the only source of certain knowledge, and only what the Bible actually says, or what can be logically deduced from those biblical statements, constitutes real knowledge. . . .

Of course, advocates of other systems of thought will deny this claim. In particular, advocates of religions that have their own dogmatic principle other than biblical revelation (for example, the Qur’an in the case of Islam) might object that their claimed revelation could just as well become one’s axiomatic starting point. To all such counterarguments Clark simply responds: “Since all possible knowledge must be contained within the system and deduced from its first principles, the dogmatic answer must be found in the Bible itself. The answer is that faith is the gift of God. . . . The initiation of spiritual life, called regeneration, is the immediate work of the Holy Spirit. It is not produced by Abrahamic blood, nor by natural desire, nor by any act of human will.”

Clark eliminates any assault on Christianity from the outside: “Our axiom shall be that God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.” The Qur’an is false because the Bible is true.

However, what I found most fascinating was this: “Ultimately, then, for Clark as well as for Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Van Til, we know that the God of the Bible is the true God because he has sovereignly chosen to illuminate our minds by the regenerating work of the Spirit.”

The belief in a darkened intellect not only paved the way for presuppositionalism, but it essentially provides a built in defense. Nonbelievers are not privy to the gift of faith and, therefore, neither do they have “real knowledge.” It seems to me that, in addition to Clark's axiom above, Calvinism is presupposed as well.

Yet I'm still curious as to the extent of this illumination. As mentioned above, “Basic to Calvin’s distinctive approach to apologetics is his strong doctrine of human sin. In his view, our fall into sin has corrupted our entire being, including our mind: 'the reason of our mind, wherever it may turn, is miserably subject to vanity' (2.2.25).” Is this no longer the case with regenerated man? I suppose an affirmative answer (yes, it is darkened still) makes sense in a futurist framework that focuses on “progression.” How does this notion of the darkened intellect work in a preterist framework? Is the mind of regenerated man now thoroughly trustworthy? If one answers in the negative, then perhaps Calvin was off on the darkened intellect. Calvin was looking forward to an event that was already in his past. His understanding of the end influenced his understanding of the beginning and the middle. As such, his observation of human behavior--post-parousia--was understood as evidence of man's darkened intellect. Christ had not finished his work, so human reason was still darkened--a view that assumes futurism to be true. Yet the belief in a darkened intellect was the seed of presuppositionalism. But if the darkened intellect was not removed by Christ's completed work, in a preterist framework, how could it have been a consequence of sin? In any case, it appears that presuppositionalism assumes both Calvinism and futurism. Well, these are some of the things I was mulling over while mowing the lawn. (I have a big yard.)

Sam the Eagle Wanted for Questioning in Chicken Disappearance

Sam the Eagle of Muppet fame may have fallen from his lofty perch. On April 10th, authorities received an anonymous tip which led police to the 1500 block of N. Sverige St. When police arrived on the scene, they were greeted by a dozen empty cages and a mass of chicken feathers.

One officer commented, "This looks like a classic smash and grab. The chickens put up struggle, but their assailant was too much for them. A few of the poor buggers managed to tear out a beakful of their attacker's feathers. Thank goodness they did. These blue feathers belong to a much larger bird, a rare species of bald eagle. So, we have a suspect."

Police reports indicate that Sam the eagle has been harassing a Swedish chef in the area for quite some time. Neighbors have also sighted the large bird loitering about after hours. The Swedish chef, when reached for comment, stated that he was "borked." (A translator could not be reached before publication.)

Police have issued this statement: "We would like to question Sam the Eagle regarding his alleged activities in the Swedish district. Unfortunately, we believe he has gone underground. He may be attempting to disguise his appearance by donning a wig, perhaps even glasses. Additional information leads us to believe that he may have had plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Police artists have created this conceptual drawing of how Sam may look today."

Police are calling on the public for help with this case. They request that you do not try to apprehend Sam the Eagle yourself. Though he may be recovering from a pterectomy, his talons are still quite dangerous. If you recognize Sam the Eagle, contact local law enforcement. Please scroll down to view his picture.