Ο ΤΟΠΟΣ

So, people again gathered in numerous cities to protest big government on July, 4th. 10,000 people gathered in D.C. Did you hear about it?

Recently, Don Preston and Dr. Lloyd Olson engaged in a written debate on the date of Revelation. Dr. Olson took issue with Don's focus on the so-called "time statements."

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Olson's final negative:

LINGUISTICS.

Violations of context allow Preston to equate a word from one context to a word in another context. Let the reader note that this is the same as taking the word "run" from sentence 1 below and using it in sentence 2.

. . . 1. You run a race.

. . . 2. Your nose runs.

It would be funny to think about a nose with legs going down a race track. Yet this is the hilarity of Preston's arguments. This type of willful abuse of context combined with ignorance of elementary linguistics brings Preston to some hilarious conclusions.

Although Dr. Olson says "this is the same" thing that Preston has done, it is not. There are a couple of problems with examples 1 and 2. First, one verb is transitive and one is intransitive. This fact alone changes the usage of the word. Second, a "linguist" could argue that these two examples are actually two different words with the same orthography, homonyms. Another example might be the "bank" of a river or a "bank" as in a financial institution. Yes, one might be daft to argue these usages of "bank" mean the same thing. But I doubt one will find such an argument in Preston's affirmatives, so Dr. Olson's illustration is uncharitable at best.

Dr. Olson also has much to say about the importance of context. I agree with him in spirit, however, I question his method of determining context:

I chastised Preston for foolishly ripping a phrase or word out of one context and forcing it upon another context...What he fails to see is that I appealed to these other texts to show that the definition of a word depends on its context. In one context, "quickly" may be objective – in the next few minutes or so. Yet in another text (like Rev 22:10) "at hand" hasn't happened in some 2000 years! One can't mindlessly appeal to different contexts for linguistic support of a definition ripped out of context.

Did you notice "'at hand' hasn't happened in some 2000 years!" Dr. Olson offers nothing, as far as "elementary linguistics" is concerned, as to the "context" of Rev 22:10. Instead, he makes an extralinguistic appeal to history (i.e., tradition). In doing so, he not only undermines his emphasis on "context" and "elementary linguistics" but commits a logical fallacy in the process.

That's about as far as I got. I just couldn't read any more.

My wife works in the building industry, so a lot trade rags end up on her desk. She brought one them home the other night. As I was sitting on the couch, I picked it up and began to thumb through some of the articles. There was piece on illegal immigration and it's affects on labor rates, competition for jobs, etc. An illegal day-laborer stated that he made about $100 a day. He would hang out at a diner in the morning and sure enough some suburbanite would come by to offer him work. Now, let's assume he works 6 days a week for 50 weeks a year, that's 30,000 in untaxed income. Yet he still receives the same benefits that myself and other tax payers receive. In fact, he may receive more. With forged papers he can apply for welfare and other social services.

One of our customers works in the medical field. He told us that one of the local hospitals is writing off nearly 85% of emergency rooms visits because the patients are illegal. They don't have insurance and they can't/won't pay for treatment.

I, on the other hand, work and pay income tax. I also carry insurance. Our latest medical insurance quote was $925 a month. After the government takes its slice and the insurance companies take theirs, the illegal, who isn't contributing to the "pot," probably has a better standard of living than me--money-wise, that is. Soon my wife and I will be a single income family. So, we will not only be competing for goods and services with dual income families, we will also be carrying the burden, through taxes and insurance, of illegals.

To make things worse, I'm reminded of this every day as I pull into work. At the end of our street, where we have a building and property that is taxed, day laborers congregate waiting for their next cash job. What can I do? A local police officer said that the higher-ups don't want to investigate.

Oh, and I got a speeding ticket a couple weeks ago. It's a good thing I had insurance.

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.)