tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22465014556408806322024-03-13T11:33:14.856-04:00James' Thoughts and MusingsJames Bradford Pate's comments on religion, politics, entertainment, books, and lifeJames Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comBlogger6159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-31059826196137321902023-10-28T13:45:00.002-04:002023-10-28T13:45:22.741-04:00The Symbolic Meaning of Colors in Biblical Texts, by Lottie Westfield<p>This guest post is by Lottie Westfield. Lottie spent seven years as
teaching assistant before taking a step back to start a family.She has
since rediscovered her love or writing and enjoys contributing to a
range of publications, both in print and online.</p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" />
<p><strong>Primary Colors: A Revelation of Hidden Symbolism In The Bible</strong></p>
<p>Primary colors blue, yellow, and red are imbued with rich <a href="https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2023/06/18/he-shall-be-like-a-tree-planted-by-the-rivers-of-water/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">symbolism throughout the Bible</a>.
Blue is largely symbolic of heaven and God Himself, while yellow
represents God’s glory. Red, on the other hand, is associated with blood
and atonement. <a href="https://www.southernliving.com/holidays-occasions/easter/easter-colors" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">By studying color symbolism</a> in
the Bible, you’re opening your heart and mind up to a type of
non-verbal communication from God. Colors are used to evoke emotion and
convey messages regarding God’s promises and plan for salvation.
Understanding colors symbolism can help you develop a stronger
understanding of Scripture and provide greater guidance on your journey
of faith. </p>
<p><strong>Blue: symbolic of heaven </strong></p>
<p>As the color of the open skies — also known as the gateway to heaven,
or the first heaven — blue is symbolic of heaven and God Himself. In
Exodus, for example, Moses travels up Mount Sinai, along with his older
brother, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of
Israel. Here, they see God himself, with “a pavement of sapphire, as
clear as the sky itself” appearing under His feet. Soon after, God gives
Moses the Ten Commandments. Tekelet is the Hebrew word for light blue,
with its most accurate translation actually being “<a href="https://pantheon.org/articles/t/tekhelet.html" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">the color of the sky</a>.”
In addition to blue, the sky comprises colors like pink, yellow, gold,
lavender, and navy — all these colors can accurately be called tekelet. </p>
<p>Tekelet was also the color of the Tabernacle in the wilderness — the
portable tent in which God dwelt with the Israelite people. Here, it was
a color included in curtains, sacred vessels, and priestly clothing
(and particularly in their hems). In Luke 8:40-48, in particular, Jesus
Christ heals a bleeding woman. Once the woman touches the edge of Jesus’
cloak, her bleeding stops. So, blue is also representative of God’s
healing power and grace. </p>
<p><strong>Yellow: the glory of God </strong></p>
<p>Yellow is one of the most symbolic colors referenced in the Bible —
it’s largely used to symbolize jubilation, faith, anointing, and God’s
glory. Interestingly, you’ll often find yellow and gold are used
interchangeably throughout the Bible. The Hebrew word “charuts” usually
refers to gold the precious metal. For example, Jesus is gifted with
gold at birth in Matthew 2:11, while the interior Solomon’s temple in
the Old Testament was covered in pure gold. New Jerusalem is also
described as being a city of pure gold in Revelation 21:18. In these
contexts, gold represents God’s sovereignty. “Tsahob”, on the other
hand, refers to the sallow color found either on skin or hair indicating
it’s leperous (Leviticus 13:30, for example, deals with the issue with
plague and infection with the underlying meaning that sin corrupts the
spirit just as leprosy corrupts the body). </p>
<p>The yellow butterfly is also rich in symbolism in the Bible. <a href="https://whenyouneedgod.com/what-is-the-real-meaning-of-yellow-butterfly-in-the-bible-deep-dive-bible-study-commentary/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Yellow butterflies are representative of happiness</a>,
new beginnings, hope, and enlightenment. Fascinatingly, these insects
complete a transformative process from caterpillar and cocoon to their
new beginning as butterflies. In fact, this metamorphosis is similar to
the journey of Christ from <a href="https://www.history.com/news/resurrection-stories-ancient-cultures" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">birth to death and resurrection</a>, and symbolic of personal growth and spiritual transformation. </p>
<p><strong>Red: symbolizing blood and atonement</strong></p>
<p>Red is primarily used to symbolize humanity, sin, and atonement
throughout the Bible. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for red is “oudem”,
which translates to “red clay”. You’ll also notice “oudem” isn’t a far
cry from Adam — the first human being created by God from the dust of
the ground. Esau also derives from “oudem” — one of Isaac’s sons
described as red and hairy. “Oudem” is therefore the root of “mankind”.
Yet, most obviously, red is the color of blood. In the New Testament,
for example, blood imagery is featured heavily throughout Jesus’
sacrifice. In the Old Testament, atonement for sin is achieved through
animal blood sacrifice (as in Leviticus 17:11). In Exodus 12:1-13, the
Israelites also sacrificed a sacred Passover lamb to escape the Angel of
Death. After killing the lamb, they applied its blood to the doorposts
of their homes, therefore absolving their sins and escaping death. </p>
<p>The symbolism of primary colors in the Bible is rich and
illuminating. By familiarizing yourself with color symbolism, you’ll be
able to better interpret the imagery used in prophecy and understand
Scripture in greater depth.</p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-15946087366984565952023-01-18T23:16:00.002-05:002023-01-18T23:16:51.984-05:00The New American on Pro-Life Laws and Keri Lake<p></p><p>I read some articles from the John Birch Society’s long-standing <i>New American</i>
magazine and am passing along two articles. Both provide a helpful
counterbalance to the mainstream media’s narrative. They are lengthy and
rather dry—-they don’t evoke a gleeful “own the left” response that,
say, listening to Tucker or Ben Shapiro will evoke in red-meat
conservatives—-but they present relevant considerations, like a
conservative <i>Time</i> magazine article would. I can understand why Greenhaven Press’s Opposing Viewpoints series often drew from <i>TNA</i>
to represent a “conservative viewpoint” on controversial issues. I
still have questions, as I normally do, but consider these articles
worth sharing. </p><p>1. <a href="https://thenewamerican.com/magazine/tna3818/page/237331">“Will Pro-Life Laws Really Kill Women?”, by Rebecca Terrell.</a></p>
<p>Terrell argues that many state pro-life laws already contain
exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother. Moreover,
they prohibit elective abortions, which are unrelated to, say, a
situation in which a woman has a miscarried fetus inside of her that can
cause infection and needs to be removed. Terrell notes that Europe,
too, has restrictive abortion laws, without a massive number of women
dying, and, against the charge that OB-GYNs in the U.S. are fleeing
pro-life states, she argues that most OB-GYNs do not practice abortion,
anyway, and quotes OB-GYNs who deny that restrictive abortion laws
affect their practice. The logical question would then be, “What about
the horror stories? Are they true?” Terrell seems to suspect that we are
not being told the whole story in those cases, treating them as
propaganda. An alternative possibility is that hospitals are trying to
stay on the safe side to avoid lawsuits, avoiding what is not
necessarily prohibited by law. This article is admirable in that it lays
out the horror stories as portrayed in the media, then responds to
them. </p>
<p>2.<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/fighting-for-fair-elections/"> “Fighting for Fair Elections,” by Annalisa Pesek. </a></p>
<p>You would think, from the mainstream media narrative, that Republican
Keri Lake of Arizona is simply a sore loser about losing the
gubernatorial race. I heard fragment’s of Lake’s case from one of her
appearances on Tucker, but this article lays it out in more detail.
According to this article, there were significant deficiencies in the
election: malfunctioning voting machines, unverified ballots being
counted, election officials who expressed bias against MAGA candidates,
and the Secretary of State, who, incidentally, was also Lake’s opponent
in the election, threatening counties to certify. What interests me
about this article is that Lake, at least sometimes, runs contrary to
the typical conservative spiel about election reform. Granted, there are
overlaps, particularly about the importance of ensuring that ballots
are verified. But conservatives usually are the ones who insist on
“Election <i>Day</i>,” not “Election <i>Month</i>,” and they
especially are rigid about election deadlines. Lake, however, supports
allowing more time for certification, in these cases, and is also
supportive of holding the election again. There may be fact-checks out
there that argue contrary to Lake, but, if you are interested in Lake’s
case, this is the article to read. </p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-22200567692662076732022-05-18T13:30:00.003-04:002022-05-18T13:30:46.026-04:00My Current Events Links on Wordpress<p> These days, my blogging has consisted of posting links to opinion pieces. I do this sporadically on Wordpress. Here are links to those posts:</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2022/05/03/the-z-man-the-partys-over/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2022/04/01/david-cole-on-the-absurdity-of-wapo-fact-checking-and-the-woke-words-kill-meme/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2022/01/29/fair-what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2021/12/20/nymag-joe-bidens-big-squeeze/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/the-new-american-celebrate-columbus-divided-history-and-deserves-to-be-defended-not-upended/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2021/09/05/morning-wire-chinas-socially-conservative-reasons-for-banning-video-games/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2021/09/03/fair-the-media-myth-of-once-prosperous-and-democratic-venezuela-before-chavez/</p><p>https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2021/09/02/elder-platform-for-california/<br /></p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-73571175896745624932022-05-18T13:23:00.005-04:002022-05-19T00:46:19.886-04:00Tucker’s 5/17/2022 Monologue
<p>Takeaways:</p>
<p>A. The Buffalo shooter was mentally ill and gave indications that he was mentally ill prior to the shooting.</p>
<p>B. Should we ban the expression of ideas because someone acts violently on them? Pol Pot committed mass violence after reading Marx. Should we ban Marx?</p>
<p>C. Biden often failed to visit areas in which a non-white mass shooter was the assailant. </p>
<p>D. The left, Democrats, and anti-Trump Republicans have gloated about the browning of America and how that could result in white people becoming the minority and Democrats gaining power over Republicans. Do not they bear some responsibility when someone acts violently in response, since they smugly rub white people's faces in their demographic and electoral decline?</p>
<p>E. The left may be politically miscalculating in their assumptions about the browning of America, since many Hispanics may agree more with Trump than with Nancy Pelosi. I (James) think there is something to this. As David Cole has stated repeatedly in his columns, immigrants do not carry the "white guilt" about American history that white liberals in America do. Also, living in a cosmopolitan area, I notice a religious, cultural, and social conservatism among many from the Third World. If they take the place of white liberals, is that necessarily a bad thing, from a conservative perspective? </p>
<p>https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-democratic-party-change-electorate</p>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-90833199825482463892021-12-15T22:08:00.003-05:002021-12-15T22:08:25.395-05:00Book Write-Up: The Alchemy Thief, by R.A. Denny<p> R.A. Denny. <em>The Alchemy Thief. </em>2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Thief-R-Denny-ebook/dp/B094BXYC7G/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>This book is the first of R.A. Denny’s “Pirates and Puritans” series.
Whereas her previous series, “Tales of Tzoladia,” was fantasy, this
book is a combination of historical and science fiction.</p>
<p>Two people from the twenty-first century end up in the seventeenth
century. One is Ayoub, a member of ISIS. The other is Peri, short for
“Experience.” They do not know each other and accidentally end up in the
past at different times, with neither knowing about the other until
later in the book. Ayoub is on a pirate ship with other Muslims, whereas
Peri is with the Puritans, among whom her name “Experience” is not
unusual.</p>
<p>Ayoub initially struggles to understand and to fit into his new
surroundings. The Muslim crew finds him unusual and speculates that he
is possessed with a jinn, especially when he tries to explain
twenty-first century weaponry to them. They take him to an Islamic
mystic, who proves to be a gentle presence throughout the book. Over the
years, Ayoub comes to attain a prominent and respectable position among
the crew. The question then becomes whether Ayoub will use his
knowledge of the future to change history and establish a caliphate,
right when America is in its infancy stage.</p>
<p>Peri confronts her own set of challenges among the Puritans. She is
arrested for witchcraft due to the nature of her arrival and
controversial things that she innocently says, but she is rescued by the
Puritan leader John Winthrop, who is unsure what to make of her but has
his own affinity with alchemy, which arguably overlaps with witchcraft.
(Not that he would say that, but he would be more open to the bizarre
or the paranormal than the average Puritan.) Peri also tries to adapt to
a patriarchal society with stricter sexual and social mores. </p>
<p>Other characters are Peri’s love interests. In the twenty-first
century, there is Liam. Unknown to Peri, Liam is a secret ISIS recruit,
reaching out to her as part of a larger agenda whose intricacies are
hidden even from him. He encourages her to take a class with Professor
Bey, who turns out to have his own mysterious history. In the
seventeenth century, there is Daniel, a gifted Native American convert
to Puritan Christianity.</p>
<p>The struggles by Ayoub and Peri to adjust to new surroundings, and
those surroundings’ attempts to grapple with them, are an asset to this
book. Perhaps that element could have been enhanced had the Puritan
characters not spoken in contractions (“can’t,” “don’t”). At first, they
were formal in their speech, but their speech became less formal as the
book went on.</p>
<p>This part of the book is profound, as it highlights the nuances of
historical characters and how they are more rounded than their
conventional portrayal suggests: </p>
<p>“[Willam] Harris had spoken up for some pacifists which caused Roger
Williams to call him an anarchist. Peri had never heard of this
controversy. She had been taught that Williams was the most tolerant of
the Puritans. She wondered if Harris had hanged.” </p>
<p>Other noteworthy aspects of the book include how a conventional
Western young man like Liam could become drawn to ISIS, and how God led
Daniel, within his own Native American culture, to become open to
Christianity. The latter will resonate with those who enjoy Don
Richardson’s <em>Eternity in their Hearts</em>, which concerns how God reveals Godself in non-Christian cultures and thus makes them open to the Gospel.</p>
<p>The best part of the story itself is when Peri finally meets Ayoub,
with each of them surprised to encounter another time traveler. </p>
<p>This book is clearer than Denny’s “Tzoladia” series. I was still
confused in some places, perhaps because of my own struggle with reading
fiction. Non-fiction is better at laying things out, whereas, with
fiction, the reader needs to do more work on his or her own part. Not
really understanding what a “bodkin” is may have sown some confusion on
my part, as the bodkin plays a significant part in this book; there is
also the factor, if memory serves me correctly, that there are two
supernatural bodkins, yet both are the same one: the one in the museum,
and that bodkin in the past.</p>
<p>I was a little unclear about how Peri could marry Daniel when she was Ayoub’s captive.</p>
<p>Then there is the identification of the mysterious Dr. Bey. He turns
out to be another character who is in the book, but my response was
“Who?” I do not think he was the Islamic mystic, since the Islamic
mystic is a good person, but I am unsure. Sorry for the spoiler there.
Perhaps that aspect of the book could have been resolved had Denny
included in the back a guide about the main characters, like her
excellent guide about the historical personages in the book. </p>
<p>I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author. My review is honest! </p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-72064429039420298082021-10-17T21:35:00.001-04:002021-10-17T21:35:18.780-04:00Book Write-Ups: The Servant of the Lord and His Servant People; Reformation Commentary on John 13-21; Every Leaf, Line, and Letter<p>Here are some reviews of IVP review books I was sent. The reviews
will be succinct. These will be the last IVP review books that I review
in a long time. I enjoy them, but there are other books that I want to
read, without necessarily having to blog about them. In the near future,
I will review R.A. Denny’s <em>The Alchemy Thief</em>, but that will probably be the only book review that I write in a long time. </p>
<p>A. Matthew S. Harmon. <em>The Servant of the Lord and the Servant People: Tracing a Biblical Theme through the Canon.</em> IVP Academic, 2020. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Servant-Lord-His-People-Biblical-ebook/dp/B08JGM5389/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>As the title indicates, Harmon goes through the concept of the
“servant of the LORD” throughout the Bible. What stands out in my mind
is his interaction with the scholarly argument that the New Testament
rarely applies Isaiah 53 to Jesus, questioning whether Isaiah 53 was
even significant in and formative of early Christianity. The reason that
this stands out to me is that it was an issue that one of my advisors
wanted me to engage in my M.Div. thesis, which argued that Isaiah 53
predicted Christ. (This was Harvard Divinity School, where such a thesis
would be controversial.) Harmon contended that, indeed, the New
Testament was significantly influenced by Isaiah 53. </p>
<p>B. <em>Reformation Commentary on Scripture: John 13-21</em>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/John-13-21-Reformation-Commentary-Scripture/dp/0830829687/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Like the other books in this series, this one quotes Lutheran,
Calvinist, Anabaptist, and pre-Tridentine Catholic interpretations of
biblical passages. In this case, the passages are John 13-21. John 13-21
is a fruitful section of Scripture. There are passages about God giving
believers whatever they request in Jesus’s name, Jesus’s promise that
the disciples will do greater things than Jesus did, the promise of the
Holy Spirit, and Jesus’s statement that the disciples will be able to
forgive and retain sins. I was edified in reading the book, but all I
remember at this point is the interpretations of how the disciples will
do greater things than Jesus did: that it applied to the first century
apostles, not believers afterwards. I guess these Reformers were not
Pentecostals.</p>
<p>The glossary in the back refreshed my memory about some things that I
read in the previous Reformation Commentaries’ glossaries. For example,
Henry VIII did not become a Protestant simply because he disliked his
wife and the Catholic church would not grant him an annulment. Rather,
he had an Old Testament reason for the annulment: “Believing his
marriage cursed as it transgressed the commands in Leviticus against
marrying a brother’s widow…” (What about Levirate marriage?) That was
the official reason, but then I read in E. Michael Jones’s <em>Barren Metal</em> that Henry VIII was not even consistent in this stance. </p>
<p>C. Timothy Larsen, ed. <em>Every Leaf, Line, and Letter: Evangelicals and the Bible from the 1730s to the Present. </em>Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Every-Leaf-Line-Letter-Evangelicals/dp/083084175X/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Various scholars contribute to this book, which primarily concerns
the interpretation and application of the Bible in eighteenth,
nineteenth, and early twentieth century America. There are a couple of
chapters that go outside of the United States, such as one on
charismatic renewal in 1960’s Britain and New England, and another on
evangelicalism in a global context. I will not go through each chapter
but rather will comment briefly on select chapters:</p>
<p>Kristina Benham, “British Exodus, American Empire: Evangelical
Preachers and the Biblicisms of Revolution.” Mark A. Noll, “Missouri,
Denmark Vesey, Biblical Proslavery, and a Crisis for <em>Sola Scriptura.” </em></p>
<p>I include these chapters together because both highlight a tension in
attempts to apply the Bible. On the one hand, the Bible encourages
submission to authority. Romans 13 comes to mind. The Bible also appears
to condone slavery. On the other hand, the Bible condemns
authoritarianism. American revolutionaries and abolitionists drew more
from the latter strain of thought. How they sought to reconcile their
views with the former is where they become interesting. One
abolitionist, for example, sought to explain Leviticus 25’s statement
that Israelites can hold non-Israelite slaves in perpetuity by referring
to the circumcision of non-Israelite slaves in Exodus 12: when they are
circumcised, they become Israelites and thus can be released on the
seventh year, like Israelite slaves. Maybe, but does that not make
Leviticus 25’s statement meaningless and unnecessary? Unless, I suppose,
Gentile slaves in Exodus 12 could choose to remain uncircumcised. </p>
<p>Jonathan Yeager, “Faith, Free Will, and Biblical Reasoning in the Thought of Jonathan Edwards and John Erskine.”</p>
<p>Edwards did not see humans as automatons as much as I thought, and
Edwards leaned, somewhat, towards a Catholic view on justification. At
this time, I lean heavily onto the “Christ’s imputed righteousness”
model, since my own moral thoughts fall dramatically short from where
Christians say they should be. But there are a variety of views out
there. That is why I cannot be dogmatic in sharing a canned “Romans
Road” or “Way of the Master” Gospel with people. </p>
<p>Mary Riso, “Josephine Butler’s Mystic Vision and Her Love for the Jesus of the Gospels.”</p>
<p>Josephine Butler stressed the significance of suffering in
spirituality. Such a message does not resonate with me currently, since
things are going fairly well in my life: I take Zoloft, I have a job,
and people there seem to like me, or at least they act like they do! The
same incel (not violent incel, but just incel) feelings are still
present, but I am living with them. Of course, there are other people
who are suffering, and I should try to cultivate empathy. (Note: This is
why I hate blogging. I write a thought, fear that people will call me
self-centered, then feel a compulsion to qualify what I am saying,
resulting in a jumbled mess.) Anyway, where this chapter resonated with
me was when Riso started talking about Butler’s alienation from
organized Christianity, particularly the doctrine of hell.</p>
<p>Timothy Larsen, “Liberal Evangelicals and the Bible.”</p>
<p>Larsen critiques Vernon Storr, a liberal evangelical Anglican in the
early twentieth century. This chapter is effective in showing how
Storr’s liberal evangelicalism is inadequate: Storr believes the Bible
is errant and stresses its human aspect, with the result that he cannot
provide a solid authoritative basis for Christian doctrine or theology.
Larsen, however, seems to go to the opposite extreme, acting as if the
Bible lacks problems and even seriously entertaining conservative
attempts to reconcile how many animals went onboard Noah’s ark. Larsen
has one humorous insight, though: when he observes that Storr appeared
embarrassed when a biblical prophecy actually was fulfilled! Storr’s
proposed approach to the Bible was essentially to look at the main idea
rather than the details of biblical passages. That may be one way to
reconcile the apparently problematic nature of the Bible with Christian
faith, but it makes the Bible boring. One reason I like to read the
Bible is to figure out why it says what it says, as it says it: it
provides unending intellectual stimulation. If all I can get from the
Bible is “be nice to people,” then it would be a dull book.</p>
<p>Malcolm Foley, “‘The Only Way to Stop a Mob’: Francis Grimke’s Biblical Case for Lynching Resistance.”</p>
<p>Francis Grimke made a lucid and compelling case against lynching in
the South. This may seem obvious, but if you read and listen to white
nationalists, you get the impression that lynching was understandable
because it was carried out against rapists. Grimke provides an effective
counter-point to that position. Foley also notes James Baldwin’s
observation that, notwithstanding southern whites’ condemnation of
miscegenation, there were white slaveholders who had children by their
black slaves. White nationalists can retort “But that doesn’t mean
miscegenation is right,” but that inconsistency in white Southern
culture should be addressed, somehow, considering the importance of
anti-miscegenation arguments in defenses of segregation. </p>
<p>John Maiden, “‘As at the Beginning’: Charismatic Renewal and the
Reanimation of Scripture in Britain and New Zealand in the ‘Long’
1960s.” </p>
<p>Maiden talks about how charismatics were discontent with the overly
intellectual nature of evangelicalism and sought (maybe even had) an
emotional Spirit-filled faith. These days, the intellectual content of
Christianity appeals to me. I am hanging onto my faith like a thread,
but I can still enjoy Charles Hodge, with his dispassionate approach!
When it come to the charismatic movement, I feel, as I long have, that
either God is leaving me out, or that charismatics are too dogmatic
about God’s views, or that charismatics show Christianity to be too
“real” for my comfort.</p>
<p>Catherine A. Brekus, “<em>The American Patriot’s Bible</em>: Evangelicals, the Bible, and American Nationalism.”</p>
<p>This chapter is nauseatingly and predictably woke, but its critique
of the American Patriot’s Bible does highlight nuances in American
history and thus is an effective critique of “Christian right”
conceptions of U.S. history. In my view, the secular humanist
progressive conceptions are problematic, too. </p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-53046664477519221342021-08-04T09:15:00.003-04:002021-08-04T09:15:33.300-04:00Books Write-Up: Obadiah, Jonah and Micah; Letters for the Church; the Paradox of Sonship<p></p><p>I will be catching up on book reviews in this post. IVP Academic sent
me complimentary copies of these books. My reviews are honest!</p>
<p>A. Daniel C. Timmer. <em>Obadiah, Jonah and Micah</em>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Obadiah-Jonah-Micah-Introduction-Commentaries/dp/0830842748/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Daniel C. Timmer teaches biblical studies at Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary and also in Montreal, Quebec at the Faculte de
theologie evangelique. As the title indicates, this book is a commentary
on the biblical books of Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah.</p>
<p>Some items:</p>
<p>—-The sections on Jonah and Micah are more interesting than the one
on Obadiah. The Obadiah section still engages some intriguing scholarly
views, such as one that the ancient Judahites hated the Edomites because
the Judahites feared that the Edomites had replaced them as God’s
people. Not surprisingly, Timmer rejects this view, but what is amazing
is the ideas that scholars put out there in an attempt to be fresh and
original.</p>
<p>—-The Jonah section is noteworthy because it treats the Book of Jonah
as historically accurate and as pre-exilic. That contrasts with the
picture I long got about the book in my reading of scholarship: that it
is some post-exilic fable promoting inclusivism towards Gentiles when
there was controversy about inclusivism and exclusivism within the
post-exilic Jewish community. Timmer’s commitment to Jonah’s historicity
is manifest in three areas. First, Timmer contends that the language of
Jonah reflects pre-exilic Hebrew and defends the idea that the Hebrew
is authentically archaic as opposed to being post-exilic archaizing.
Second, Timmer notes the deterioration of the Assyrian empire in the
ninth century, which would have made the Ninevites receptive to Jonah’s
prophecy of doom. Third, Timmer harmonizes the text of Jonah with
history. Jonah 3:6-9 mentions a king of Nineveh and, because Nineveh was
not Assyria’s capital city prior to 705, Timmer concludes that this
“king” is not a king of all Assyria but rather a magnate over one of the
fragments of the Assyrian empire. </p>
<p>—-Timmer offers intriguing possibilities and engages scholarly
speculation. He speculates that Jonah himself may have commissioned the
ship that took him to Tarshish, meaning Jonah was more than a mere
passenger. And, contrary to those who maintain that Jonah’s message to
the Ninevites is solely one of doom, Timmer notes possible indications
that Jonah preached repentance to the Ninevites.</p>
<p>—-In the section on Micah, Timmer attributes the false prophecies of
the false prophets to demons. I am hesitant to accept Timmer’s
conclusion here because I think that it projects later demonology onto a
pre-exilic book. Plus, it brings to mind annoying tendencies of my
religious background, which attributed anything supernatural outside of a
rigid religious construct to demons. Still, Timmer’s conclusion does
raise profound questions. First, to what did the Hebrew Bible attribute
false prophecy? Were the false prophets lying? Did they receive their
visions from a supernatural source other than God? There are places in
the Hebrew Bible that appear to engage this question. Jeremiah 23:16
asserts that false prophets are speaking their own ideas, not the words
of God; here, they are deluded or lying. I Kings 22:21-23, however,
depicts God himself sending a lying spirit to the mouths of the false
prophets. On a similar note, Deuteronomy 13:1-3 asserts that a false
prophet may be part of God’s testing of the Israelites’ faithfulness,
implying, perhaps, that God sent the false prophet to test the
Israelites. Second, while I doubt that pre-exilic ancient Israelites
conceived of an arch-enemy of God, Satan, having a retinue of demons
seeking to undermine God’s plan, that does not mean that they lacked a
demonology altogether, and they may have seen at least some demons as
more than pesky spirits, which is how some scholars tend to portray the
ancient conception of demons. Deuteronomy 32:17 states that the false
gods to whom Israelites sacrificed were demons (shedim); these were more
than pesky spirits but were able to impersonate deity. </p>
<p>—-Since I became aware of the historical-critical method, I have
wondered how to approach the eschatological passages of the Old
Testament prophets. Micah forecasts the dramatic, supernatural
restoration of Israel and the Davidic king in reference to the nations
of his time, such as Assyria. Micah 5, which Matthew 2:6 applies to
Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem, depicts seven princes defeating Assyria, a
power in Micah’s own time that had largely vanished from the scene by
the time of Jesus. Is Micah 5 Micah’s view about what would happen in
his own day, within his own geo-political context, as opposed to being a
prophecy about the distant future? Timmer engages this question,
treating the references to Assyria in Micah 5 as paradigmatic and
typological for Israel’s foes in general. Timmer states on page 181 that
“this typological understanding of these two empires fits well with
Micah’s use of <em>Nimrod</em> for Babylon (cf. Gen. 10:8-10).” As
Nimrod in the Book of Genesis could foreshadow later Babylon, so could
Assyria be a type for Israel’s eschatological enemies.</p>
<p>—-Timmer states on page 228: “‘Zion’ will no longer be limited in terms of space and geography, so will be able to welcome <em>many nations</em>
(4:1-4) from across the globe (7:11-12). Her newly arrived citizens,
particularly those of non-Israelite ethnicity, will radically expand her
population (it is important that Daughter Zion identifies herself as
Abraham’s offspring, rather than extending that title to all ethnic
Israelites).” Timmer essentially sees continuity between Micah’s
eschatology and the New Testament’s inclusion of Gentiles into the
people of God. How convincing this is, is a worthwhile question. Timmer,
of course, has to deal with Micah 4:5’s declaration that the nations
may walk in the name of their own gods, whereas Israel will walk in the
name of the LORD. Does this envision a time of eschatological tolerance
and pluralism, when Gentiles will worship their own gods rather than
becoming part of the people of Israel and worshiping the LORD alone?
Timmer’s solution appears to be that Israel recognizes she had better be
faithful because that would be what would attract the nations to the
God of Israel; otherwise, the nations will continue to worship their own
gods. There is also the focus on ethnic Israel throughout Micah and all
of the Old Testament prophets, for that matter, which makes me question
whether Micah is downplaying ethnic Israel in favor of a spiritual
community that includes Gentiles. Moreover, one may wonder if the
nations in the “inclusivist” passages of the Old Testament prophets are
necessarily joining the people of God or rather are becoming subordinate
to the Israelites, meaning that their honor for God is an aspect of
their political subordination to Israel. If so, such prophecies may
concern Israel’s political prestige in the eschaton more than the
nations becoming closer to God. </p>
<p>B. Darian R. Lockett. <em>Letters for the Church: Reading James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude as Canon. IVP Academi</em>c, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Church-Reading-James-Peter/dp/0830850899/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Darian R. Lockett (Ph.D., St. Andrews) teaches New Testament at Biola
University. This book goes through the Catholic epistles—-James, 1-2
Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude—-while noting themes that unite them. </p>
<p>A few items:</p>
<p>—-Lockett largely accepts the traditional views of authorship, as he
engages scholarly skepticism about said authorship. Some of his
solutions are predictable, in light of conservative scholarship:
attribute stylistic features to a secretary, patristic support, etc. In
his discussion of II Peter, though, he refers to elements of II Peter
that appear to regard the letter as a sequel to a previous letter,
meaning one person may have written I-II Peter.</p>
<p>—-Where Lockett may stray, somewhat, from conservatism is in his
treatment of Jude’s quotation of I Enoch. He surveys conservative
scholarly denials that Jude regards I Enoch as divinely-authoritative
and simply does not find them convincing. If Jude does regard I Enoch as
divinely-authoritative, then that has profound implications, including
Christians having another book in their canon. </p>
<p>—-Love is a theme that recurs in the book. This troubles me, as a shy
introvert with grudges and social anxiety who cannot bring himself to
love people and questions whether Christians manifest the unconditional
love they judge me for lacking. That rant aside, Lockett, in some cases,
shows how love fits into the argument of the Catholic epistles: James
opposes favoritism for the rich over the poor, and James’s stance, of
course, is consistent with love. In some cases, Lockett perhaps could
have more effectively showed where love fits into the equation. In II
Peter 2:21, for example, the author criticizes those who turned away
from the sacred command, and Lockett interprets that sacred command as
the command to love. Yet, Lockett also regards the context for that
passage as pertinent to apostasy: leaving the faith and returning to
pagan sensualism and hedonism. How does rejecting love fit into that
apostasy?</p>
<p>—-In Jude 9, Jude refers to Michael’s dispute with Satan over the
bones of Moses. The interpretation that I usually heard of that incident
is that Satan wanted to make Moses’s bones an object of worship.
Lockett, however, offers a different interpretation: that Satan was
saying that Moses did not deserve proper burial because Moses had killed
an Egyptian. Whether there is a basis for this interpretation is a good
question, especially since, as Lockett states, the story “most likely
comes from the lost ending of the Testament of Moses” (199).</p>
<p>—-Lockett is especially effective in painting the perspective against
which II Peter contends, one that draws together different elements of
the book. Why does II Peter focus on the inspiration of Scripture and
divine judgment? Because people were saying that the prophets were
merely conveying their own ideas, not divine revelation, and they were
denying that divine judgment was something to fear, since things have
continued the same way for millennia.</p>
<p>C. R.B. Jamieson. <em>The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews</em>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Sonship-Christology-Christian-Scripture/dp/083084886X/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>R.B. Jamieson (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) is associate pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. </p>
<p>When the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to Jesus as God’s “son,” what
does it mean? On the one hand, Hebrews appears to manifest a high
Christology: Jesus is Son of God in that Jesus is God. Through the Son,
God made the worlds (Hebrews 1:2). The Son’s word sustains all things,
and the Son is the brightness of God’s glory and the image of God’s
person (Hebrews 1:3). The Son is called God in Hebrews 1:8, and the Son
is superior to Moses because Moses was a servant in the house, whereas
the Son built the house, and the ultimate builder is God (Hebrews
3:1-6). The Son also, like God, lacks beginning of days and end of life
(Hebrews 7:3).</p>
<p>On the other hand, Hebrews seems rather adoptionistic, in some
places, meaning that the man Jesus became God’s Son rather than always
possessing that status by virtue of inherent divinity. Hebrews 1:5
appears to suggest that God begot Jesus as Son on a specific day, which
differs from God the Son being eternally begotten. Hebrews 2:10 affirms
that Jesus was made perfect through sufferings. Does that imply that he
was not perfect before? Is not God eternally perfect?</p>
<p>Jamieson’s solution is that there are two types of Sonship in
Hebrews. First, Jesus has always been God’s Son in the sense that he
himself is divine: he is, and always has been, God. Here, Jamieson
rejects the conventional scholarly tendency to divorce the New Testament
from Nicaea and Chalcedon, as if the latter cannot be used to
understand the former. The latter, for Jamieson, is what makes sense of
the former. To quote Jamieson on page 146, “Hebrews is not merely a
significant step along the way to Nicaea but is, in a crucial sense,
already there.”</p>
<p>But, second, being the Son of God also means being the Messiah, God’s
chosen ruler. The Davidic king was considered the son of God (II Samuel
7:14), ruling on the throne of God (I Chronicles 29:23). The king
became God’s son at his coronation (Psalm 2). Jesus, likewise, became
God’s Son, the ruler of the cosmos, at his resurrection. Jesus attained a
rulership and Messianic status that he lacked before. What, then, does
Hebrews 2:10 mean when it says that the Son became perfect? Jamieson
interprets that to mean that the Son, through suffering, qualified to
become the high priest of humanity. By becoming human and suffering as a
human, Jesus atoned for sin and became better able to understand
Christians who struggle with sin (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15). </p>
<p>Some items:</p>
<p>—-Jamieson elucidates how Melchizedek fits into Hebrews’s argument.
When Hebrews 7:3 affirms that Melchizedek lacked beginning of days and
end of life, what does it mean? Was Melchizedek eternal? Was Melchizedek
Jesus? Jamieson, of course, replies that Hebrews 7:3 is noting that
Melchizedek lacks a genealogy: his mother and father are unmentioned in
the Old Testament. How, though, does that fit into Hebrews’s argument?
Jamieson’s response is that, according to Hebrews, Melchizedek is a type
of Christ. What is true of Melchizedek merely on paper is true of
Christ in reality. </p>
<p>—-Ordinarily, Jamieson is judicious and detailed in his
argumentation. One aspect of his interpretation of Romans 1:3, however,
is a stretch. Jamieson, echoing other scholars, argues that Jesus was
Messiah due to his descent from Mary, who was a descendant of David.
That was how Jesus was of the seed of David according to the flesh.
Here, he is trying to reconcile Romans 1:3 with the virgin birth. If
Jesus were not the seed of David through Joseph, since Joseph was not
his biological father, then Jesus had to be the seed of David through
Mary. But questions need to be addressed. Can Messianic status pass
through the mother rather than the father? If Luke 3’s genealogy is
indeed Jesus’s genealogy through Mary, does that not disqualify him from
being the Davidic king, since the Davidic dynasty was through David’s
son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14), not Nathan, the son of David mentioned in
Luke 3? And is there any evidence that Mary had Davidic descent? </p>
<p>—-Jamieson at one point seems to deny that Hebrews envisions
Christians reigning with Christ, as it focuses on Christ as king. That
could be: from a historical-critical standpoint, one should focus on
what the text says rather than importing what it does not say. But does
not Jesus in Hebrews bring many sons to glory (Hebrews 2:10)? </p>
<p>—-Where I am unclear, and this may be rectified through a rereading
of the book, is where Jesus’s divinity fits into Jesus’s Messiahship. On
some level, Jamieson appears to go an Anselmian route: only God could
atone for the sins of all of humanity. Jamieson also seems to think
that, according to Hebrews, Jesus’s divinity is part of his
qualification to rule, and that it even elevates the concept of
Messiahship beyond that of a mere Davidic king. </p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-31365762541984972752021-07-11T19:25:00.001-04:002021-07-11T19:25:12.973-04:00Common Dreams: Biden Applauded for Executive Order Targeting ‘Insidious’ Anti-Worker Practices<p>“‘The measures encouraged by this EO represent a wish list
progressives and other pro-competition advocates have been promoting for
years, and in some cases decades,’ David Segal, director of the Demand
Progress Education Fund, said in a statement.</p>
<p>“‘From a ban on non-compete agreements that suppress wages and keep
employees tied to jobs they would rather leave, to pushing for
importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada—and from helping
people switch between banks to addressing anti-competitive behavior in
online marketplaces, these initiatives would improve the wellbeing of
workers, small and mid-sized businesses, and consumers across
essentially all major sectors of the American economy,’ Segal added.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/09/biden-applauded-executive-order-targeting-insidious-anti-worker-practices">https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/09/biden-applauded-executive-order-targeting-insidious-anti-worker-practices</a></p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-25284692783547361342021-07-05T08:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:14.635-04:00Booknotes: Shanghai Conspiracy, The Mission of Demythologizing<div class="entry-content">
Some booknotes:<br />
<br />
A. Major General Charles Willoughby. <i>Shanghai Conspiracy: The Sorge Spy Ring</i>. Western Islands, 1965.<br />
<br />
This book was originally published in 1952. Charles Willoughby served
as chief of intelligence under General Douglas MacArthur, who writes
the introduction to this book.<br />
<br />
This book is about the Communist spy ring of Richard Sorge, a
Communist agent who was part of the Nazi government in Germany. The book
focuses a lot, however, on his espionage towards Japan. Another figure
in this book is Agnes Smedley. Willoughby argues that she was a
Communist, her denials notwithstanding. Part of her job was as a
propagandist for the Chinese Communists, portraying them to the West as
agrarian reformers. A significant part of the book is Sorge’s own
account, which includes how he became a Communist, effective techniques
of espionage, and the goals of the espionage.<br />
<br />
Some items of interest:<br />
<br />
—-Sorge’s discussion of the techniques of espionage sounded like
common sense. First, you want to be educated about the region where you
are conducting the espionage. Sorge states that he was not particularly
popular among his fellow Communists, but they still came to him because
he knew a lot. Second, Sorge often used intermediaries in Japan. It
would look suspicious to the Japanese if a white guy like him were going
around asking questions. Consequently, he relied on native Japanese.
Some of these native Japanese became Communists because they were
discontent with the Japanese oligarchs. The Communist network, according
to Sorge, was vast: one person would report to someone, who would
report to someone else, and so on.<br />
<br />
—-Some of the Japanese Communists whom Sorge profiles were interested
in internal subversion, but the focus of this book is more on Russia’s
geopolitical interests. One purpose of espionage towards Japan was to
see what Japan would do so that Russia could act accordingly. Japan and
Russia were enemies. When Russia learned that Japan was going against
China or the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, it could breathe a sigh of relief,
because at least Japan was not going after Russia at that time. Russia
could then focus its resources on other goals. Sorge occasionally
mentions his personal knowledge about Nazi deliberations. Nazis were
debating, for example, whether to pursue an alliance with Japan or
China.<br />
<br />
This book is not as juicy as a lot of John Bircher-type books. Russia
does not come across so much as a monster trying to care over the world
but as a nation seeking to preserve its own interests; other reviewers
on Amazon, however, arrived at a different impression, as might I were I
ever to reread the book. Perhaps Willoughby’s point is that the
Communist network does exist, and the very existence of such a network
should be cause for alarm.<br />
<br />
B. David W. Congdon. <i>The Mission of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann’s Dialectical Theology</i>. Fortress, 2015.<br />
<br />
I bought this book for a low price in 2015. It was selling like hotcakes! I decided to read it years later.<br />
As Congdon narrates, Barth and Bultmann were estranged from each
other because they felt that their theological approaches were
different. Barth thought that Bultmann’s demythologization was an
attempt to keep Christianity up with the times. But Congdon argues that
their approaches actually overlap and complement each other. Barth’s
approach focuses on the divine side of the equation: God uses the Bible
to act as the Word of God, challenging and transforming the hearer.
Bultmann’s focus was on the human side of the equation: the person’s
existential response to the revelation, after grasping its core.<br />
<br />
Part of the problem, according to Congdon, is that people
misunderstand what Bultmann’s demythologization was all about. It was
not about keeping Christianity up with the times, as if modern science
deserves a privileged status. Rather, it was about translating the
Gospel for moderns and unveiling to them its essence. Many people today
have a different worldview from the original historical audiences of the
Gospel, due, in part, to new scientific knowledge. The message
underneath the myth needs to be uncovered, both as a missionary and
translation endeavor, but also so that Christianity can focus on its
essence as opposed to idolizing and absolutizing its mythical trappings.
This essence is an existential encounter with God’s grace, which frees
people to live for others.<br />
<br />
The book is over eight hundred pages. It was repetitive in making its
points, but I still feel it was worthwhile to read. Perhaps this is
because it came across as meaty and deep. The biographical aspect of the
book is engaging, as it chronicles the views of Barth and Bultmann
towards each other; the book also goes into the background and the
influences on their thought. A brief appendix discusses examples of
demythologization, for example, with the atonement. The book could have
used more of this.</div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-75704275666261891832021-06-30T16:07:00.003-04:002021-06-30T16:07:27.601-04:00 Book Write-Up: The Path of Faith, by Brandon D. Crowe<p>Brandon D. Crowe. <em>The Path of Faith: A Biblical Theology of Covenant and Law</em>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Path-Faith-Biblical-Theology-Essential-ebook/dp/B08JN23XXY/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Brandon D. Crowe has a Ph.D. from Edinburgh and teaches New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. This book, <em>The Path of Faith</em>,
is part of IVP’s Essential Studies in Biblical Theology series. This
particular book traces the concept of God’s law and the importance of
obeying it through the Old and New Testaments.</p>
<p>My post here will not be a comprehensive summary and analysis of the
book but rather will identify points that stood out to me and
intersected with what I have been thinking about lately.</p>
<p>A. Crowe talks about the Reformed concept of the “covenant of works.”
Adam and Eve were under a “covenant of works” in the Garden of Eden:
obey God and they will live, disobey God and they will die. Well, they
disobeyed God and, under the “covenant of works,” they deserved death.
That is why God inaugurated another covenant, one of grace, which would
allow Adam and Eve to live and have a relationship with God, even though
they had sinned. When I first looked up this concept, it somewhat
baffled me, as it appeared to limit a significant concept, a covenant of
works, to Adam and Eve, and that covenant did not even last that long,
at that. But Crowe highlights that the “covenant of works” has continued
relevance. Those who are saved are under the covenant of grace, whereas
the unsaved are under the covenant of works: as with Adam and Eve, God
judges the unsaved according to their obedience and, of course, they
fail, which is why they need a savior.</p>
<p>B. But Crowe says more about the covenant of works, as he addresses
Christian critiques of the concept. Crowe rejects the idea that, under
the “covenant of works,” Adam and Eve needed to earn eternal life in the
Garden. Rather, they, too, were the recipients of God’s freely imparted
gifts in the Garden. In my daily devotions, I read Scripture and ask
what the passage I am reading says about God’s love, grace, sovereignty,
presence, and hope (by which I mean eschatology and New Testament
application of Old Testament passages). Often, it is difficult to
identify how a passage relates to God’s grace because it appears to
reflect God’s law: God judges a sinner for sin or God stresses the
importance of obedience. But a thought occurred to me: God’s grace is
still present even in passages about law. God established the covenant
with people by grace: God took the initiative, and they did not qualify
for it through any merit on their part. They may have had to obey rules
under the covenant, and consistent violation of those rules could bring
peril, but their relationship with God existed because God chose to
establish it, before they had done anything good or bad. Moreover, God’s
law was itself a gift of grace, something that God freely gave people
and that they did not earn. Crowe makes similar points in his book.
Where this idea gets thorny is that Paul in Romans and Galatians seems
to distinguish grace from law.</p>
<p>C. Crowe engages the question of what exactly makes the new covenant
new. That is a question that I have long had. Christians make a big deal
about how Jesus gave people access to God and brought them divine
forgiveness, but people, particularly Israelites, had that under the Old
Covenant, too. I can think of ways that the New Covenant is an
advancement on the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, God related
primarily to Israel; under the New Covenant, God relates to Gentiles as
well, through Christ and the church. In the Old Testament, God’s Spirit
empowered people for great works in specific circumstances: kings,
judges, prophets. In the New Testament, that is the case, too, as occurs
in Acts and in the spiritual gifts given to believers, but the Spirit
also plays a role in the spiritual regeneration and practical
sanctification of Christians. The New Covenant also lacks many rituals
of the Old Covenant, as the New Covenant is a more spiritual covenant.
Moreover, while people under the Old Covenant had a relationship with
God, in which they could pray to God and receive divine forgiveness,
Jesus eventually had to come and do his work for those things to exist
in both the Old Covenant (in that case, retroactively) and the New
Covenant. The access that people had to God under the Old Covenant, in
short, was due to Jesus. Those are the results of my grappling with the
question, which nevertheless lingers. How does Crowe address the
question of what the New Covenant brought that was new? Essentially, he
says that the New Covenant brings people a greater level of access to
God and experience of the Holy Spirit than existed under the Old
Covenant. I will need a separate item to address the topic of access to
God. On the topic of the Holy Spirit, what is interesting is that Crowe
believes that spiritual regeneration existed under the Old Covenant.
Many Old Testament Israelites were unregenerate, according to him, but
some were regenerate.</p>
<p>D. Before I get into the topic of access to God, I want to say that
Crowe’s chapter on Hebrews is very good. It is largely in that chapter
that Crowe addresses the question of what makes the New Covenant new.
Crowe focuses on the text of Hebrews to identify where the author
believed the Gospel was present under the Old Covenant, and what the New
Covenant brought that was new. Crowe in that chapter also engages
Hebrews interaction (8:10; 10:16) with Jeremiah 31:33, where God
promises a new covenant in which God will write God’s laws on the hearts
and minds of the Israelites. Crowe quotes someone who looks at Hebrews
itself and concludes that this does not mean the author expected
Christians to observe the entire Torah literally. Some laws, primarily
moral ones, are still binding, whereas ritual ones centered on the
sanctuary are null and void, as far as God is concerned.</p>
<p>E. Now to the topic of access to God. My struggle with this topic is
twofold. First, what did the Tabernacle in the Old Testament bring that
the Israelites did not already have? Israelites could already pray to
God and receive answers to prayer, right? Abraham’s servant in Genesis
24 did so. What access to God, therefore, did the Tabernacle provide
that the Israelites lacked? Second, what access to God did the new
covenant bring that was lacking under the Old Covenant? Evangelicals
sing the song “Take me into the Holy of Holies, take me in by the blood
of the Lamb,” assuming that Christians have the kind of access to God
that Old Testament priests had. Do Christians have that kind of access,
or is their access—-the right to pray to God and receive answers to
prayer—-something that all Israelites, not only priests, had under the
Old Covenant? Something that the Tabernacle brought, of course, was
God’s actual presence in the midst of the Israelite community, and that
is why the ritual system and the restrictions were set up: to protect
the Israelites from a pure and holy God, and to encourage the pure and
holy God to continue to live in the midst of the Israelites and bring
them physical blessings (i.e., agricultural abundance) rather than
departing from them in response to their moral or ritual defilement.
Does a similar concept exist under the New Covenant? Well, one can make a
case that God is actually and physically present with people under the
New Covenant: I Corinthians 6:19 affirms that the Christian’s body is
the temple of the Holy Spirit, and more than one passage treats the
church itself as a temple of God (e.g., I Corinthians 3:16-17; II
Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; I Peter 2:5). One can even argue
that, in light of God’s presence with believers individually and
communally, believers should seek purity, as the Old Testament
Israelites were to purify themselves so that God’s presence would stay
with them and would not destroy them. Paul in II Corinthians 7:1 exhorts
Christians to purify themselves in body and spirit, and Paul also
speaks of the inappropriateness of joining Christ’s body with a
prostitute (I Corinthians 6:15). Death can even result from failure to
treat God’s presence with respect, for Paul in I Corinthians 11 speaks
about people who ate the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner and became
sick, died, and perhaps even brought on themselves damnation. I guess my
problem here is this: it does not feel as if the situation today is
similar to the Israelites’ experience of God’s presence in the Old
Testament. God’s presence does not necessarily bring material blessings
under the New Covenant, as it did under the Old, but, what is more,
carnal Christians are not dead at higher rates due to their spiritual
and moral impurity. Does Christ’s blood protect them from that?</p>
<p>F. Crowe highlights how God under the Torah was establishing a holy
and righteous order, in which God was worshiped and honored and people
respected their neighbors enough to avoid harming them and to give to
them in time of need. A question occurred to me recently: was it really
that difficult for Israelites to obey the Torah? Was God seriously
asking that much of them? Many Christians would answer “Yes, it was
difficult, even impossible, and that is why God sent Jesus to be the
savior.” But how difficult was it for Israelites simply to participate
in the righteous system that God established: to bring their sacrifices
when they were supposed to bring them, to leave the corners of their
field for the poor, to refrain from retaliatory vengeance? If God was
requiring utter spiritual and moral perfection from them, that would be a
different story, but what God required of them under the Torah seemed
manageable and doable. Yet, the Israelites did not do it, and here
Christians maintain that this was because their human nature was sinful.
</p>
<p>G. Crowe in one place emphasizes the importance of finishing
strongly. He contrasts David and Solomon, who started well but ended
poorly, with Paul’s statements about running the race and persevering
until the end (I Corinthians 9:23-25; Philippians 3:12-4:1). Two things
come to mind. First, there is the Reformed concept of the perseverance
of the saints: true saints will persevere in the faith until the very
end. Yet, we have Solomon, who may not have. John MacArthur’s response
to that is that Solomon may very well have persevered, however, for
Ecclesiastes was probably written near the end of Solomon’s life, as
Solomon reflected on the futility of his earlier years and recognized
the importance of revering God. On a related note, some Christians
present spiritual growth as inevitable for the true believer. Is it,
though, if spiritual giants like David and Solomon regressed? Second, it
is easy for Christians to lose the simplicity of their faith as they
are battered by life, with its suffering, temptations, and betrayals.
They can become jaded and their faith and love for God and others may
weaken. </p>
<p>H. Crowe states on page 162 that “The cubic dimensions of the new
Jerusalem (Rev 21:16) recall the dimensions of the holy of holies and
Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 40-48): the whole city is a temple where God will
dwell with his people.” This interested me because I have been curious
as to how the New Testament engages Old Testament eschatological
expectations, which largely focus on Israel and assume Old Covenant
institutions (i.e., temple, sacrifices, priesthood). According to Crowe,
the New Testament embraces some of those expectations, while modifying
them.</p>
<p>This book does not answer every question I have to my satisfaction,
but it was refreshing to read someone at least asking those questions
and trying to engage them.</p>
<p>I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.</p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-72437085483462767672021-06-28T08:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:20.659-04:00Book Write-Up: The Whole of Their Lives, by Benjamin Gitlow<div class="entry-content">
Benjamin Gitlow. <i>The Whole of Their Lives: Communism in America—-A Personal History and Intimate Portrayal of its Leaders</i>. Western Islands, 1965.<br />
<br />
This book was originally published in 1948. Benjamin Gitlow was a former member of the Communist Party in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the topics of interest in this book:<br />
<br />
—-As the subtitle indicates, the book is a portrayal of the leaders of CPUSA. If you saw the 1981 movie <i>Reds</i>,
starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton, you know about Jack Reed, an
American journalist who supported the Soviet Union. He is featured in
this book, as Gitlow had interactions with him. Reed was initially
enthusiastic about the U.S.S.R. but became disillusioned with its
authoritarianism and how its leaders enriched themselves and preserved
the oligarchies. Gitlow presents some of Reed’s eccentricities, such as
his delight in showing Marxist know-it-alls how better versed in Marx he
was than them. Also discussed is how William Z. Foster rose to high
position in the Party from obscurity and Earl Browder’s ultimate
marginalization within the Party.<br />
<br />
—-A key point that Gitlow makes is that the CPUSA takes its orders
from the Soviet Union, with sometimes awkward results. The U.S.S.R.
opposed Hitler, then sided with him, then sided with the United States
against Hitler, then opposed the United States in the Cold War. The
CPUSA tried to keep up with these trends and adjust its political
strategies and message accordingly. Gitlow states that the CPUSA had so
infiltrated U.S. military installations, that it could have
significantly undermined the U.S. war effort in World War II had Russia
not joined with the Allies.<br />
<br />
—-The Soviet Union’s geopolitical strategy is discussed in this book.
Stalin was shy about exerting power against other nations when Russia
lacked sufficient military and economic resources. Yet, Stalin had a
stake in the Spanish Civil War because of Spain’s strategic location and
resources.<br />
<br />
—-The alliance between the New Dealers and the CPUSA is another
topic. The CPUSA was initially quite vocal in its criticism of the New
Deal, believing that it upheld and benefited wealthy capitalist
interests. But the two struck a secret alliance. The CPUSA came to see
the New Deal as preferable to a lot of other alternatives, and the New
Dealers thought that the CPUSA could be a valuable ally because it could
mobilize grassroots support for the New Deal; this would be important
because Southern Democrats were opposing the New Deal effort.<br />
<br />
—-The ouster and execution of Trotsky is covered. Trotsky was an
effective military strategist and public speaker, but he was politically
naive. Stalin sought to eliminate Trotsky as a competitor. Trotsky fled
to the West and sought to undermine Stalin from the outside. Stalin had
him killed in Mexico, and the assassin, in prison, enjoyed a life of
luxury. Trotsky reminds me, of course, of Snowball in <i>Animal Farm</i>:
a rousing speaker who was accused of trying to sabotage the farm after
his ouster. In Gitlow’s portrayal, Trostsky was much more vain than
Snowball. Gitlow does not really talk about the supposed ideological
differences between Trotsky and Stalin, i.e., Stalin being nationalistic
and wanting to focus on industrial development of the Soviet Union,
whereas Trotsky was cosmopolitan and sought to encourage world
revolution. Perhaps that is because Gitlow thought that Stalin, too,
supported world revolution.<br />
<br />
—-Gitlow talks about CPUSA strategy. They may consider a strike a
success, for example, even if it fails, and the reason is that the
strike at least inspires workers to rebel.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia’s article on Gitlow says that some doubt the accuracy of
this book because it is juicier than Gitlow’s autobiography, written
earlier. The book did not strike me as particularly juicy, though, and
its presentation of Communist goals and strategies made sense: I can
realistically picture people acting in such a manner.</div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-68548219455438781882021-06-27T16:25:00.001-04:002021-06-27T16:25:07.533-04:00Glenn Greenwald: Questions About the FBI’s Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media<p>Glenn Greenwald’s take on Tucker’s claim that FBI infiltrators
instigated the January 6 capitol invasion. Two passages in particular
stood out to me.</p>
<p><a href="https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-role-in" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-role-in</a></p>
<p>“This reaction is particularly confounding given how often the FBI
did exactly this during the first War on Terror, and how commonplace
discussions of this tactic were in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots">mainstream liberal circles</a>. Over the last decade, I reported on countless cases for <em><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/preemptive-prosecution-muslims-cointelpro">The Guardian</a></em> and <em><a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupting-terror-u-s-plot-deserves-scrutiny-skepticism/">The Intercept</a></em>
where the FBI targeted some young American Muslims they viewed as
easily manipulated — due to financial distress, emotional problems, or
both — and then deployed informants and undercover agents to dupe them
into agreeing to join terrorist plots that had been created, designed
and funded by the FBI itself, only to then congratulate themselves for
breaking up the plot which they themselves initiated. As I asked <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/">in one headline</a>
about a particularly egregious entrapment case: ‘Why Does the FBI Have
to Manufacture its Own Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave
Threats?'”</p>
<p>“If the FBI had advanced knowledge of what was being plotted yet did
nothing to stop the attack, it raises numerous possibilities about why
that is. It could be that they just had yet another “intelligence
failure” of the kind that they claimed caused them to miss the 9/11
attack and therefore need massive new surveillance authorities, budget
increases, and new Patriot-Act-type laws to fix it. It could be that
they allowed the riot to happen because they did not take it seriously
enough or because some of them supported the cause behind it, or because
they realized that there would be benefits to the security state if it
happened. Or it could be that they were using those operatives under
their control to plot with, direct, and drive the attack — <em>as they have done so many times in the past </em>— and allowed it to happen out of either negligence or intent.”</p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-20400369403879990112021-06-23T17:07:00.004-04:002021-06-23T17:29:09.616-04:00 Books Write-Up: Worshiping with the Reformers; Understanding Gender Dysphoria<p>Here are some new book reviews. I received complimentary copies of these books from the publisher. My reviews are honest.</p>
<p>A. Karin Maag. <i>Worshiping with the Reformers</i>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Worshiping-Reformers-Karin-Maag/dp/0830853022/">here</a> to purchase the book.</p>
<p>Karin Maag has a Ph.D. from the University of St. Andrews and teaches
Calvin Studies at Calvin University. This book is one, among other,
companions to IVP’s excellent Reformation Commentary on Scripture
series. As the title indicates, the book discusses and describes how the
Protestant Reformers, including Anglicans and the Puritans, worshiped
in church assembly. Among the topics addressed are preaching, prayer,
baptism, communion, the visual arts and music, and worship outside of
the church (i.e., pilgrimages, family devotion).</p>
<p>Many of its details are not salient in my mind right now, but here are some prominent things that I got out of this book:</p>
<p>—-Church attendance was mandatory throughout Europe. The rationale
was that God would bless the region if people there attended church and
possibly curse it if they did not. An Old Testamenty concept, for sure.
Church affiliation was by region, so you could see, say, a Catholic
attending a Protestant service, performing his Catholic rituals during
them. The Reformers considered this to be a problem.</p>
<p>—-There were different views among the Reformers about whether Jesus
Christ was physically present in the communion elements. Many already
know this, but Maag’s description of a prominent Calvinist view stood
out to me. Calvinists largely rejected the “real presence,” on the one
hand, and treating communion primarily as a memorial, on the other. For
Calvinists, the Holy Spirit was present at communion, so it was a
spiritual experience, not a mere memorial of the past.</p>
<p>—-People wanted to be buried underneath the church. A question that
occurs in my mind is whether the Reformers sought to reconcile this
practice with the Levitical desire to strictly separate the holy from
death. Reading this book in conjunction with the P-parts of the Torah
generates those types of questions.</p>
<p>—-Protestant sermons could last an hour-and-a-half. </p>
<p>The book has an engaging prose and draws on primary sources. </p>
<p>B. Mark A. Yarhouse. <i>Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture</i>. IVP Academic, 2015. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Gender-Dysphoria-Transgender-Psychological/dp/0830828591/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Mark A. Yarhouse has a PsyD from Wheaton and teaches psychology and
mental health practice at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Gender Dysphoria is a clinical term for people who feel alienated from
their biological gender and identify more with the opposite gender, or
who feel alienated from the gender spectrum, period.</p>
<p>Some thoughts and observations:</p>
<p>—-Yarhouse does not believe that transgender people choose to have
the feelings that they have. He goes into various scientific attempts to
root Gender Dysphoria in biology. Yarhouse promotes a compassionate
approach on the part of the church and believes that, unfortunately,
conservative churches have fallen dramatically short of this.</p>
<p>—-According to Yarhouse, there is diversity among people with Gender
Dysphoria. Some may identify with the opposite gender, in areas, yet
choose not to undergo surgery in an attempt to change their gender.
Others have issues with the idea of gender distinctions, gravitating
towards gender fluidity. </p>
<p>—-Another topic that Yarhouse engages is how people categorize Gender
Dysphoria. He relates a case study about a transgender person whose
sister sees the Gender Dysphoria as a disability deserving compassion,
whereas the transgender person embraces a “diversity” and “identity”
model that treats the Gender Dysphoria as part of the rich diversity of
life.</p>
<p>—-Reading and listening to right-wing media (e.g., David Limbaugh,
Ben Shapiro, etc.), one gets the impression that psychological and
educational professionals rush to change a child’s gender at even a hint
of gender confusion. They tell anecdotes and maybe this happens—-I do
not know. Yarhouse denies, however, that “we”—-by which he probably
means psychological professionals—-rush to do so. (UPDATE: This book was released in 2015, so the situation may have changed since then.) In terms of dealing
with Gender Dysphoria, as far as Yarhouse is concerned, there is a
spectrum between surgically changing one’s gender, on the one hand, and
leaving the person with Gender Dysphoria to suffer in silence, on the
other.</p>
<p>—-Some conservatives, or professionals conservatives interview, point
out health risks that come from changing one’s gender. Yarhouse weighs
in on this in an endnote, saying that taking the medication poses little
risk but provides space and time for people to make a decision.</p>
<p>—-Yarhouse attempts to relate to the Bible with subtlety and nuance.
He is hesitant, for example, to relate the “effeminate” in I Corinthians
6:9 to transgender people. At the same time, he also appears hesitant
to render the Bible irrelevant to contemporary Gender Dysphoria. In
discussing the Torah’s prohibition on cross-dressing, he acknowledges
that the author may be criticizing pagan practices, yet says that the
author may also find cross-dressing to be an insult to God’s created
order.</p>
<p>—-Something that I wondered about in reading this book, and I do not
know if I got this from Yarhouse or it was swimming in my mind in
response to what Yarhouse was saying: there is talk about giving
estrogen to biological boys who want to be girls, and testosterone to
biological girls who want to be boys. Could not one use a similar
approach to treating the Gender Dysphoria: give the testosterone to the
boy who wants to be a girl, for example, and that may enhance his
masculinity? On a side note, Yarouse, overall, appears optimistic that
Gender Dysphoria can be treated. </p>
<p>—-In terms of where Yarhouse lands, he wants churches to welcome
people with Gender Dysphoria while still upholding what he considers to
be biblical standards on gender, and he distinguishes biblical standards
from cultural standards. He is not overly specific about what this
would look like. Presumably, the effectiveness of such a model would
depend on how receptive the person with Gender Dysphoria is to
conservative Christianity: does the person with Gender Dysphoria see it
as a disability to be rejected or as an aspect of diversity to be
embraced? If the latter is the case, then the person may not find
conservative Christians’ “acceptance” (i.e., we accept you, but you must
repent before you truly are part of us) to be that accepting. If the
person is an adult, then that person can simply choose not to attend a
conservative Christian church. If the person is a child with
conservative Christian parents, or even an adult with long-standing
conservative Christian connections, then the person will probably have
more of a struggle.</p>
<p>—-In one of the anecdotes, Yarhouse refers to a conservative
Christian who told a transgendered person that the person may find God
in an unconventional way, and that encouraged the transgender person,
who previously thought that the only option was to choose between
transgenderism and God. This caught my eye. One may ask how the
conservative Christian roots that view in conservative Christianity,
however.</p>
<p>The book is informative, particularly about the scientific attempts
to root Gender Dysphoria in biology. Yarhouse vacillates, somewhat,
between being open and embracing a conservative Christian rejection of
transgenderism. </p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-55473179491950263932021-06-21T08:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:22.957-04:00Book Write-Up: The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, by William J. Dahaner Jr.<div class="entry-content">
William J. Dahaner Jr. <i>The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards</i>. Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.<br />
<br />
This book is about the role of the Trinity in Jonathan Edwards’s thought.<br />
<br />
Some items:<br />
<br />
—-Jonathan Edwards employs a psychological analogy for the Trinity,
likening it, like Augustine, to the different dimensions of the human
soul (i.e., rationality, etc.), which are various, yet one. But Dahaner
also seems to show that Edwards has another model for the Trinity: the
Father and the Son love each other, and that generates the Holy Spirit, a
product of their mutual love. Dahaner has a related discussion about
the significance of the filioque in Christian ethics.<br />
<br />
—-According to Edwards, the members of the Trinity derive pleasure
from their love for one another. Similarly, believers’ love for God is
like their taste for honey: they experience God’s sweetness and gain
pleasure from that. This reminds me of John Piper’s Christian hedonism.
Does this conflict, though, with Edwards’s emphasis on true virtue being
disinterested?<br />
<br />
—-Edwards seeks to distinguish natural human love from the
supernaturally-generated love that believers possess. Natural human love
is extended towards one’s friends, loved ones, and acquaintances.
Divine love is extended towards the whole and is disinterested. Dahaner
discusses Edwards’s thought on this within the context of his
contemporaries and also subsequent Christian thinkers. Some, for
example, do not see natural human love as necessarily in conflict with
divine love but as part of it. Incidentally, Edwards, according to
Dahaner, believed that divine grace transformed humans to who they were
created to be, their original nature, rather than being something
utterly foreign to human nature.<br />
<br />
—-The question of whether there is a distinction between natural
human love and supernaturally-generated love is of personal interest to
me. Edwards does well to ask: if humans can generate acceptable love for
others on their own, or if the love that humans naturally show to each
other is adequate, then why would God give the believers the Holy
Spirit? What does the Holy Spirit contribute, that humans do not already
possess on their own? I wonder: How do I, as a Christian, process the
love that non-Christians show to me and others, love that is sometimes
sacrificial? I am not comfortable dismissing it as sub-standard. I think
that such love is an indication of what God’s love is like: concern for
other people and their well-being. Moreover, I question whether
Christians truly possess the disinterested, holistic love that Edwards
sees as a sign of grace: Christians, like everyone, have affection for
some people more than others and may even have negative feelings towards
certain people.<br />
<br />
—-There is also the issue of people loving others in spots,
inconsistently. Edwards talks about how the Holy Spirit creates a new
ethical foundational principle in believers, one that is loving towards
all. I think of Joab in I-II Samuel, though, who, on the one hand, could
demonstrate concern towards David, and, on the other hand, could
slaughter people (even on his own side) without thinking twice. We are
inconsistent. Edwards would probably say that Joab had natural love: he
was devoted to David because David was his friend yet lacked the
disinterested supernatural love (however that existed in believers in
the Old Testament) that is a mark of supernatural grace. At the same
time, Edwards sometimes acknowledges that even believers are incomplete
in their sanctification and are a mixture of good and bad.<br />
<br />
—-There is a lot of emphasis in this book on interpersonal love:
doing deeds of love for other people. One might think that this
conflicts with Edwards’s reclusive, sometimes misanthropic, tendencies.
Thinking back to George Marsden’s biography of Edwards, though, there
were good things that Edwards did for people. He counseled people, and
he even continued to preach at the church that expelled him, whenever it
lacked a preacher. That takes a special kind of love: I would tell the
church to kiss off.<br />
<br />
—-One thinker Dahaner discusses argued that love for people is part
of love for God. Edwards had a similar concept: when God loves the
church, God loves the Son that he sees in the church. God marvels at the
church’s likeness to his Son and appreciates her beauty. God’s love for
the church, and for others, is related to God’s love for Godself.
Edwards is known for his depictions of God as a wrathful deity, but
Edwards also talked a lot about God’s kindness to all. God’s kindness to
all is related to God’s kindness to Godself, among the members of the
Trinity.<br />
<br />
—-Love for people is part of love for God. Remember Jesus’s statement
in Matthew 25 that helping the least of these is helping Jesus. But
there are times in Scripture when love for God appears to supersede
regard for the well-being of others. Abraham in Genesis 22 was commended
for being willing to sacrifice his son out of piety towards God. The
Israelites were to turn in idolatrous friends and relatives. God’s
holiness supersedes regard for human life, as when Uzzah died for
touching the Ark of the Covenant.<br />
<br />
—-John Hick treated suffering as character-producing, yet he believed
that such an explanation falls short when it comes to especially
serious suffering. Dahaner thinks such a concession undermines Hick’s
explanation, period. It is a difficult issue: there are incidents of
suffering so heinous that one struggles to find any explanation or
silver lining in them. How much suffering is truly necessary for humans
to develop character?<br />
<br />
This book is more involved than my post may imply. Dahaner, if he
reads this, may respond that he addresses such-and-such a concern on
page such-and-such, and that may be. Reading this book is somewhat like
reading Barth: there is a lot of intricacy and complexity, but, overall,
I have a general idea about what Edwards is saying and where he is
going.</div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-11149031420521556662021-06-14T08:36:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:18:49.234-04:00Book Write-Ups: Sacco-Vanzetti, The Red Web<div class="entry-content">
Here are some notes on two books from the Americanist library, published by the John Birch Society.<br />
A. Robert H. Montgomery. <i>Sacco-Vanzetti: The Murder and the Myth</i>. Western Islands, 1965.<br />
<br />
Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants and anarchists, who were
convicted of murder in the 1920’s and executed by the state of
Massachusetts. Governor Michael Dukakis later pardoned them to clear
their name.<br />
<br />
I first learned about Sacco and Vanzetti as a junior in high school.
We were learning about modern American history, and the spiel that we
got was that Sacco and Vanzetti were wrongly convicted and were the
victims of anti-immigrant and anti-radical prejudice.<br />
<br />
I first learned of this book when I was browsing at my local public
library. I noticed that this book was published by Devin-Adair, which
published conservative books, including a compilation of Ronald Reagan’s
speeches that I read in elementary school. I put this book on my mental
shelf, recognizing it as a different perspective from the spiel that I
got in my high school history class. This book would argue that Sacco
and Vanzetti indeed were guilty of murder.<br />
<br />
Over two decades later, I finally read this book! I doubt I would
have stuck with it as a teenager, but, as an adult, I can read with more
discipline and understanding.<br />
<br />
The book’s author, Robert Montgomery, was an attorney. His book
attempts to accomplish four tasks. First, Montgomery presents evidence
that, in his mind, points to the guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti. There is
the ballistics evidence: that the bullet was rare and matched the bullet
in the gun. There were also witnesses, who saw Sacco and Vanzetti in
the area of the murder, contrary to their stated alibi. And, according
to Montgomery, Sacco and Vanzetti simply acted guilty, as if they were
trying to cover up the murder. There is also evidence that they sought
to return to Italy shortly after the murder occurred.<br />
<br />
Second, Montgomery seeks to refute the criticisms of the trial. As
far as Montgomery is concerned, the trial was fair and above board. The
judge allowed considerations in the trial that would help Sacco and
Vanzetti. The jurors, contrary to allegations, were not anti-immigrant
bigots. Some were rather cosmopolitan and had even been to Italy,
appreciating Italian customs and people. The allegations of salient
impropriety and prejudice at the trial are false. They contradict what
occurred in the case, according to records; they were impossible in
Massachusetts, according to established legal protocol. The radicalism
of Sacco and Vanzetti was not mentioned by the prosecution at the trial.
And, if the people making the allegations of impropriety indeed saw
what they did, why did they not report that to the authorities soon
after it occurred, rather than waiting decades? Far from criticizing the
conduct of the trial’s prosecutors and judge, Montgomery points to the
flaws of the defense and the devotees of Sacco and Vanzetti. They
intimidated witnesses, promised favors to influence testimony, and
bullied and physically threatened those conducting the trial.<br />
<br />
Third, Montgomery attempts to refute the argument that somebody else,
particularly members of a prominent gang, committed the murder. The
gangsters appeared to know nothing about it, and the gang itself was
not murderous, in a mafia sense. And, fourth, on a lesser note,
Montgomery comments on the attempts to manipulate the trial for
political purposes. Montgomery sees this as part of a Communist plot,
designed to treat Sacco and Vanzetti as poster-children for revolution.<br />
Montgomery is somewhat nebulous about the motive behind the murder.
He is open to the possibility that they committed the robbery to raise
money for the revolution, but he is uncertain.<br />
<br />
Just sharing with my impressions right now, I will say four things.
First, just going with what Montgomery presents, there were aspects of
the trial that strike me as fishy. When there finally was a line-up, the
other people in the line did not remotely resemble Sacco and Vanzetti.
Witnesses would pick the only one with a mustache, since the person they
saw at the murder scene had a mustache. Second, Montgomery seems to
downplay or massage details that run contrary to his position. For
example, against the charge that there was massive anti-red hysteria,
Montgomery notes that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists, not
communists. Does that really matter, though? They were revolutionaries,
and that would have been controversial in the 1920’s. Montgomery seeks
to refute the idea that Sacco and Vanzetti appeared evasive because they
were trying to conceal their radicalism from the police, as opposed to
covering up a murder. Montgomery denies that the police asked them about
their radicalism, even though, in the interview that he quotes, they
briefly did. Third, I question whether Sacco and Vanzetti should have
been executed, based on the evidence that was presented at the trial.
The evidence strikes me as circumstantial. Some of Montgomery’s
ballistics arguments are based on findings after the conviction. And, in
critiquing witnesses who placed Sacco and Vanzetti away from the scene
of the crime, Montgomery questions whether they would have remembered
such details so long after the event. Why not, though, since the days
they recalled were close to the holidays, meaning they could have stood
out more in their memories? Fourth, on a positive note, Montgomery is
effective in refuting the accusation that the jurors and the judge were
irrational bigots.<br />
<br />
The above are merely my impressions, and my summary above is far from
comprehensive. Were I to reread the book, Montgomery’s arguments might
make more sense to me, and I might remember details that are currently
vague in my mind. The book, overall, is an engaging read. Montgomery is
judicious in his presentation of considerations. Of particular interest
were the political beliefs of Sacco and Vanzetti: they were
anarchists—-like libertarians—-and they explained why they liked Italy
more than the United States.<br />
<br />
B. Blair Coan. <i>The Red Web</i>. Western Islands, 1969.<br />
<br />
This book was originally published in 1925. Primarily, it is a
defense of Harry Daugherty, who served as Attorney General under
Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Daugherty left the post due to
accusations of corruption. For Coan, Daugherty was framed. The
Communists wanted to take Daugherty down because Daugherty went after
them and their web. The Senators who conducted the investigation,
particularly Burton Wheeler, had ties to radicals, along with corruption
problems of their own. One of the key witnesses to Daugherty’s
corruption, the wife of someone Daugherty mentored, had personal animus
towards Daugherty, since Daugherty sought to deny her the money of her
husband after the husband’s death. And there were people who claimed
that they were approached by people who wanted to take down Daugherty.<br />
<br />
Coan goes into the Red Web. The red web, according to Coan, was
making advancements in Mexico, close to setting up a Communist
dictatorship in America’s backyard. Communists and socialists are more
allied with each other than is commonly thought. Their divisions are
largely rooted in conflicts over power and prestige within the movement,
not overall goals. The Red Web also sought to instigate a strike
against the railroads so as to make the railroad into a paragon of
collectivism, bringing America closer to Communism. In Coan’s telling,
Woodrow Wilson was naive about Communism, trying to play nice with them
and to win them over with kindness. By contrast, his Attorney General,
A. Mitchell Palmer, was effective in combating the Communists, as was
Harry Daugherty.<br />
<br />
As a child, I read a book by James Draper and Forrest Watson, entitled <i>If the Foundations Be Destroyed</i>.
The book was essentially a conservative revisionist history. It
defended Cortez and the Puritans, while criticizing FDR. In criticizing
Wilson, Draper and Watson depicted Wilson as an authoritarian, who
undermined the First Amendment by putting socialist Eugene Debs in jail.
Warren Harding, by contrast, released Debs from prison. That was a
surprising aspect of the book: criticizing Wilson for being too tough on
leftism. Coan defends Harding on this this by saying that the Red Web
actually preferred for Debs to remain in jail, since that made Debs a
martyr for the cause.<br />
<br />
I’ll stop here.</div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-65347368047109464292021-06-07T07:10:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:24.651-04:00Book Write-Up: France, the Tragic Years, by Sisley HuddlestonSisley Huddleston. <i>France, the Tragic Years (1939-1947): An Eyewitness Account of War, Occupation and Liberation</i>. Western Islands, 1965.<br />
<br />
This is another book from the John Birch Society’s Americanist
Library. Originally, it was published in 1955 by Devin-Adair, a
conservative publishing house. Sisley Huddleston was a British
journalist, who later became a citizen of France. As the title
indicates, the book talks about France from 1939 to 1947, which includes
the years leading up to World War II, the war itself, and the aftermath
of the war.<br />
<br />
I glazed over much of this book. There were many technicalities about
French politics, both internal and also external. (“External” refers to
France’s relationship with other nations.)<br />
<br />
But the book still has many gems. Huddleston, at times in the book,
takes a moment to talk about French culture or political theory, to
respond to critics, or to offer historical insights that may be
classified as historically revisionist. Some items:<br />
<br />
—-France traditionally was not a warlike nation. Overall, Huddleston sympathizes and roots for France.<br />
<br />
—-Franco was not eager to side with Hitler and stalled in doing so.<br />
<br />
—-Mussolini invaded Ethiopia as revenge for what Ethiopia did to Italy in the late nineteenth century.<br />
<br />
—-Russia instigated Hitler to invade Russia by making outlandish
demands. Russia’s goal was to get that invasion over and done with,
before Hitler had the time to make Germany even stronger such that it
could defeat Russia.<br />
<br />
—-The U.S. sided with China over Japan prior to World War II because
FDR previously had successful business dealings in China. Consequently,
FDR sought to contain Japanese imperialism, leading to the sanctions
that provoked Japan’s attacks on Pearl Harbor. Huddleston thinks that
the U.S. should have been friendlier to Japan.<br />
<br />
—-Huddleston speaks highly of WWII historical revisionists William
Henry Chamberlin and Harry Elmer Barnes. In many respects, he overlaps
with World War II revisionism. He believes that peace could have been
accomplished with Hitler in the years leading up to World War II, making
World War II unnecessary. Huddleston criticizes the Allies for
attacking France, including French civilians, in an attempt to weaken
Germany. The aftermath of the war, in which the Allies sought to
decimate Germany and prevent it from becoming a significant power ever
again, was not only cruel but also prevented a counterweight against
Bolshevism in Europe from emerging, resulting in the fall of Eastern
Europe to the Soviets. For Huddleston, the atomic bomb was utterly
unnecessary to end World War II. The Allies were wrong to demand
unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan, who were already willing
to surrender. Where Huddleston diverges from WWII historical
revisionism is that he is not entirely pro-German, anti-French, and
anti-Churchill. Huddleston narrates that Hitler attacked civilians in
other countries, was cruel to France, and lacked any right to Vichy
France.<br />
<br />
—-Huddleston defends Philippe Petain, a leader of Vichy France,
against charges that he was a dictator and a traitor. This can get
tedious, but there are times when the defense comes alive, as Huddleston
depicts Petain as a republican.<br />
<br />
—-Huddleston’s political philosophy is difficult to pin down. On the
one hand, he laments that the Cold War undermined the cultural
distinctiveness of European countries by pressuring them to conform to
either Soviet or American political culture. In light of this, he does
not seem to think that certain European authoritarian system are
necessarily bad. On the other hand, Huddleston is a bit of a
libertarian, so he prefers democratic capitalism to authoritarian and
collectivist systems. Huddleston’s stance towards war is also difficult
to pin down. He laments that the U.S. permitted the Soviets to gain a
foothold in Europe by failing to be tough, yet he also seems to oppose
American participation in the Cold War.<br />
<br />
—-The John Birch Society published this book because Huddleston, in
significant areas, agrees with its ideology. Huddleston is
anti-Communist. He bemoans that FDR gave ground to Russia during and
after World War II, along with the Communist influence in the French
Resistance and de-Gaulle’s government. In contrast with the Birchers,
Huddleston does not come across as a conspiracy theorist. He
acknowledges that industrialists supported Hitler and the Bolsheviks,
but he does not see that so much as a conspiracy as an understandable
attempt on the part of industrialists to protect themselves: German
industrialists sought protection from the Bolsheviks and thus supported
Hitler, and some industrialists wanted protection from Hitler and thus
supported the Bolsheviks.James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-18809352036611336002021-06-06T22:40:00.004-04:002021-06-06T22:40:51.806-04:00Book Write-Up: Postmortem Opportunity, by James Beilby<p>James Beilby. <em>Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death</em>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Postmortem-Opportunity-Theological-Assessment-Salvation/dp/0830853766/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>James Beilby is professor of systematic and philosophical theology at
Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was written books and
articles about Christian apologetics, epistemology, philosophy, and
theology.</p>
<p>This book addresses the question of whether God will provide people
with an opportunity to be saved after they die, particularly if in this
life they failed to hear the Gospel, lacked the mental capacity to
respond to the Gospel, or heard it in a distorted fashion. Those who
heard the Gospel in a distorted fashion includes African-American slaves
who heard a Gospel that promoted their oppression or people raised in
abusive religious environments. Will God offer them a postmortem
opportunity to hear the Gospel and be saved or simply damn them to hell
because they failed to believe in the Gospel in this life?</p>
<p>Beilby affirms that, yes, God will provide people with a postmortem
opportunity to be saved. He contends that God in Scripture loves all
people and desires their salvation. Within the New Testament and ancient
Jewish and Christian tradition is a concept of postmortem opportunity;
in the case of Christianity, Jesus went to the realm of the dead between
his death and resurrection and preached the Gospel, and ancient
Christians sought to account for people who lived in pre-Christian times
who failed to explicitly hear the Gospel. </p>
<p>Beilby engages questions about postmortem opportunity. If God will
save people in the afterlife, why preach the Gospel in this life? After
all, God will do it better than we possibly can, since we will present
the Gospel in a flawed manner! And, if God offers people an opportunity
to be saved in the afterlife, will not everyone be saved? If God
presents them with such an opportunity, they will know that God exists
and that Christianity is true and, naturally, they would rather not go
to hell. Does postmortem opportunity render our decisions in this life
and the warnings in Scripture irrelevant? </p>
<p>Beilby, in part, responds to these questions by restricting the range
of postmortem opportunity, treating it as an exception to the rule: God
will offer it only to people who failed to receive a sufficient chance
at salvation in this life. Beilby still believes in missionary work
because God commands it and it allows believers to be part of God’s work
in redeeming people and saving them from the power of the devil. Beilby
is still open to inclusivism: the idea that God can save people in
other cultures who may lack explicit knowledge of the Gospel but
recognize their need for grace or respond in faith to whatever light of
divine revelation that they have. What Beilby rejects is universalism
and annihilationism as defined as God killing sinners in the afterlife.
For Beilby, sinners in hell exist but with their humanity destroyed.</p>
<p>Regarding the question of whether anyone would say “no” if God
offered them a postmortem opportunity to be saved, Beilby replies that,
just because people will know God is real in the afterlife, that does
not automatically mean that they will reject sin and self and embrace
God, especially if they have been hardened in this life from a lifetime
of sinful decisions. Beilby rejects the idea that beholding the
“beatific vision” of God will result in the salvation of those offered a
postmortem opportunity. Beholding God did not help Satan when he
rebelled in heaven, plus Beilby disputes that what people see of God at
the judgment is the full “beatific vision.”</p>
<p>Reading this book brought to my mind discussions I have had with
people about this topic, from those in favor and those opposed. There
are people in my family who take a belief in postmortem opportunity in
almost universalist directions, asserting that no one can be lost in
this life because they lack a genuine opportunity to be saved here and
now. One argument they make is that God in the New Testament attested to
the truth of the Gospel with miracles, but God does not do so today, so
Christianity looks merely like one philosophy among many. Why would God
damn them on the basis of that? The response I hear to that from
restrictivist Christians, of course, is “Why, then, does this life
matter? Why preach the Gospel to others? Where is the sense of urgency
to accept the Gospel or to live it out?” Then I recall a conversation I
had with a Calvinist about the topic. For him, the issue of “those who
never heard” is a moot point, since, if God chose people not to be
saved, what does it matter if they heard or not? This is the conclusion
at which Beilby essentially arrives when he discusses whether postmortem
opportunity is more compatible with monergism or synergism.</p>
<p>This book is a careful and judicious examination of the topic of
postmortem opportunity. It is informative when it comes to ancient
Christian conceptions of this, as Beilby discusses voices in favor and
against. Beilby’s discussion of the beatific vision and eternal torment
is enlightening as well. Regarding eternal torment, Beilby questions
that God would torment people in hell, seeing the eternal torment as
flowing from people’s postmortem sin and rebellion against God. As
Beilby astutely asks, even if God were justified to torment sinners, why
would God choose to do so?</p>
<p>The book falls short, in my opinion, in its treatment of Romans
1:18-20, where Paul states that God wrath is on the Gentiles because
they have rejected the light of God’s general revelation. Does that not
imply that all people, even those who have not heard the Gospel, are
guilty before God and deserving of hell because they have rejected
whatever light they have been given? Perhaps a way to get around this is
to say that, even if God would be just to damn them, God in God’s mercy
might offer them a postmortem opportunity to be saved.</p>
<p>In addition, I think that a lot of emphasis has been placed in these
discussions on “those who never heard.” There are plenty of people who
are familiar with the teachings and doctrines of Christianity, yet they
reject them, while still living rather moral lives. Why should they be
damned? I can somewhat sympathize with my quasi-universalist family
members who assert that God in Scripture often confirmed God’s message
with a visible demonstration of its truth before holding people
responsible for accepting it. At the same time, I find problematic a
notion of Christianity that renders this life, or this day and age,
irrelevant. One way a family member gets around this is to suggest that
this life is “ground preparation”: God, in this life, can be preparing
all people to learn lessons that can make them more receptive to God in
the next life. That makes some sense, and yet the continual warnings in
Scripture give me the impression that the decisions we make in this
life, for or against God, matter in terms of the last judgment and
eternity.</p>
<p>Beilby’s synergism and belief in libertarian free will somewhat
troubles me, since I have become rather jaded and hardened over the
course of my life to conservative Christianity, towards God, and towards
my neighbor. I find myself saying in response to the biblical God and
his commands (as I conceive them): “Even if that God is real, why would I
want anything to do with him? There are a lot of assholes who are real:
them being real does not make me accept them!” I still have enough
faith to continue reading my Bible, but I would hope that God would
soften my heart in the afterlife. Unfortunately, the way Beilby presents
the matter, me in my hardened state can easily say “no” to God in the
afterlife, and that would be that!</p>
<p>The topic of evangelism was in my mind this week. A fellow employee
asked me, “Why are you so positive?” Of course, Christians are trained
to see that as an opportunity to evangelize, and perhaps the employee,
who knows I have degrees in religion, hoped for something substantive
and spiritual. But I chose to answer honestly: “because this is a
positive place to work.” Believe me, I have had the opposite, and I was
not so positive in those situations!</p>
<p>Beilby may have added to my repertoire on these issues, and, for that, the book was worth the read.</p>
<p>I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.</p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-8714456169513313622021-06-06T16:15:00.003-04:002021-06-06T16:15:44.004-04:00"The New War on Terror"<p> https://<a href="https://counter-currents.com/2021/06/new-war-on-terror/">counter-currents.com/2021/06/new-war-on-terror/</a></p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-78583419532829458372021-06-05T09:55:00.005-04:002021-06-06T15:50:26.255-04:00“The Tulsa Libel”<p>Controversial site, but a different take on what happened in Tulsa, 1921.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.amren.com/commentary/2021/06/the-tulsa-libel/">“The Tulsa Libel”</a></p><p>UPDATE: Here is another article, from another controversial site:</p>
<p><a href="https://counter-currents.com/2021/05/the-tulsa-myth/">“The Tulsa Myth”</a></p><p> </p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-51199447281804602092021-05-31T09:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:26.064-04:00Book Write-Up: Biblical Doctrine, by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue<div class="entry-content">
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue. <i>Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Study of Bible Truth</i>. Crossway, 2017. See <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Doctrine-Systematic-Summary-Bible-ebook/dp/B01MS83T7K/">here</a> to purchase the book.<br />
<br />
In this nearly 1000-page book, Pastor John MacArthur and Richard
Mayhue extensively go through biblical doctrine. The topics covered in
this book include the inspiration of Scripture, the nature of God,
Christology, the Holy Spirit, the nature of human beings, sin,
salvation, angels, the church, and eschatology. Not surprisingly,
considering this is a book by MacArthur, it embraces the verbal
inerrancy of Scripture, TULIP, cessationism, the pre-tribulational
rapture, and pre-millennialism.<br />
<br />
Here are some items, which are a mere sample of what I got out of the book:<br />
<br />
A. MacArthur and Mayhue acknowledge that there is no perfectly
accurate manuscript of the Bible on earth. Still, on the basis of such
passages as Psalm 119:89, which states that God’s word is fixed in the
heavens, they believe that there is a perfect version of the Scriptures
in heaven. Over time, the jots and the tittles of the law and the
prophets are being fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).<br />
<br />
B. MacArthur and Mayhue appeal to Acts 19:14-16 and Jude 8-10 in
arguing for cessationism, the idea that God no longer performs miracles
through human agents. In these passages, unqualified people presume to
cast out or to rebuke demons. Whether that supports cessationism is a
good question. When those men in Acts 19 presumed to cast out demons,
the time of miracles had not yet ceased, even in MacArthur’s reckoning;
the apostles performed them, after all. At the same time, Acts 19 may
demonstrate that not just anyone can perform miracles.<br />
<br />
C. MacArthur and Mayhue hold that the miracles of the first century
were designed to confirm the truth of the Christian message. Indeed,
they cite biblical passages in which people are amazed after seeing
Jesus or the disciples perform miracles. Nowadays, according to
MacArthur and Mayhue, the Bible is sufficient by itself, for II Peter
1:16-21 states that the prophecies of Scripture are even surer, more
certain than the Transfiguration. There are reasons that Scripture is
conceivably preferable to the Transfiguration: Scripture is available to
a lot of people, whereas the Transfiguration was only witnessed by
Peter, James, and John; Scripture also conveys more detail and context
than a brief miraculous event. But is II Peter 1:16-21 necessarily
saying that we no longer need miracles to confirm the faith, since
Scripture is enough?<br />
<br />
D. Related to (C.), what support for the Christian faith do MacArthur
and Mayhue offer? They are rather skeptical that classic apologetic
arguments can lead a person to the God of Jesus Christ, plus they
contend that God in Scripture hardly ever attempts to defend his
credibility: he just speaks authoritatively, and that’s that! The inner
witness of the Holy Spirit is also instrumental in bringing people to
faith.<br />
<br />
E. MacArthur and Mayhue argues that the tongues of I Corinthians 14
are human languages, like the tongues of Acts 2. They draw parallels
between the two chapters: in both cases, outsiders are baffled by what
they are hearing, as observers in Acts 2 think the disciples are drunk,
and Paul fears that people hearing tongues in I Corinthians 14 will
think that the Corinthian Christians sound like barbarians. Of course,
MacArthur and Mayhue think that people speaking in tongues in these
passages do so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; they were not
merely trained to speak foreign languages. The implication may be that
Christians in I Corinthians 14 are getting carried away with a gift that
God gave them, using it in inappropriate ways and settings. On the
basis of I Corinthians 14:21, which quotes Isaiah 28:11, MacArthur and
Mayhue conclude that tongues are a sign to the people of Israel, perhaps
that the Gospel is going to the Gentiles.<br />
<br />
F. Overall, MacArthur and Mayhue effectively survey different
Christian perspectives, discuss what they consider to be their strengths
and weaknesses, and offer their conclusions. Their discussion of when
the soul enters the body comes to mind as an excellent example. Their
discussion of preterism, however, was a little lacking: one can read
that section and wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would want
to become a preterist! MacArthur and Mayhue contend that preterism is
wrong because Christ did not come back in the first century, and the
cataclysmic heavenly signs of Matthew 24:29 did not occur then.
MacArthur and Mayhue ignore that preterists have answers to these
arguments: God’s “coming” can refer to a divine act of judgment (see
Genesis 11:5-7; Exodus 12:12), which is what occurred in 70 C.E., and
heavenly signs are not necessarily literal but are used to describe even
historical events of divine judgment (Isaiah 13, which concerns the
fall of Babylon). At the same time, MacArthur and Mayhue inspire a good
question: when do preterist arguments become a stretch? Matthew 25
occurs after Matthew 24, and it depicts God judging the nations and
sending some people to hell. Can that cogently be interpreted as a first
century event?<br />
<br />
G. There are cases in which MacArthur and Mayhue let the Hebrew Bible
be the Hebrew Bible, rather than projecting their Christian beliefs
onto it. They interpret “Elohim” (plural), for example, not so much in
reference to the Trinity, but rather as a way to express God’s
awesomeness: God is too great to be expressed in the singular. At other
times, MacArthur and Mayhue think that Jesus in the Hebrew Bible is
unavoidable: the Angel of the LORD in the Hebrew Bible, for them, is not
a mere messenger but is a member of the Godhead, since this messenger
receives worship and has the power to forgive sins (Joshua 5:13-15;
Exodus 23:21; Zechariah 3:3-4), which are divine prerogatives. MacArthur
and Mayhue also interpret Daniel 9 in light of the New Testament,
without considering non-Christian interpretations (i.e., that it relates
to the time of the Maccabees). That is understandable, since they are
Christians, and they present a fairly decent case that the Book of
Revelation envisions the seventieth week of Daniel 9 to take place in
the eschaton.<br />
<br />
H. MacArthur and Mayhue observe details in Scripture that appear to
support their positions. In favor of their Calvinist belief that divine
grace is what causes a person to have faith, they refer to Acts 18:27,
which refers to people who came to believe through grace. That does not
mean that Christians were never under divine wrath, for they were before
they believed; Ephesians 2:3 makes that clear, as MacArthur and Mayhue
contend. MacArthur and Mayhue embrace infralapsarianism rather than
supralapsarianism: they hold that God’s predestination of some to life
and some to damnation logically follows his predestination of the Fall.
They refer to Romans 9:22-23, which presents God forming vessels of
wrath and vessels of mercy. Wrath and mercy presume the existence of
sin, which came as a result of the Fall, so, for MacArthur and Mayhue,
God’s predestinating choice in Romans 9 logically follows and assumes
the existence of the Fall.<br />
<br />
I. MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through the Hebrew and Greek
words that are translated as “soul” and “spirit.” They acknowledge
nuance in the words: nephesh in the Old Testament, for instance, can
refer to a person, but also to what gives the person life.<br />
<br />
J. MacArthur and Mayhue say that impeccability, the idea that Christ
was unable to sin, is the majority position within Christianity. Why
would Christ be tempted, though, if he was unable to sin (Matthew 4;
Luke 4; Hebrews 4:15)? Is not the temptation a waste of time? Can Jesus
even be tempted, if he was unable to sin? MacArthur and Mayhue refer to
this point of view but do not successfully respond to it.<br />
<br />
K. Related to (J.), there are times when MacArthur and Mayhue chalk
things up as mysteries. In explaining passages that appear to suggest
that Jesus is the savior of all, MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go
through those passages, look at their contexts, and they conclude that
the “all” in those cases are specifically believers rather than
everyone, in accordance with their belief in TULIP. At the same time,
they deny that God desires or delights in the death of the wicked, since
such a notion would contradict such passages as Ezekiel 33:11. They say
that God may have two desires: God would like the wicked to be saved
but chooses the option that brings God more glory, which includes the
damnation of the wicked. Ultimately, they settle on saying that we see
in Scripture that God desires the repentance of the wicked, but also
that God chooses the specific people who will be saved and does not
select everyone.<br />
<br />
L. MacArthur and Mayhue make the interesting point that John the
Baptist, in baptizing people, was implying that the Israelites were not
truly part of the people of Israel and needed to become Israelites
through baptism. Baptism, after all, was a Jewish rite by which Gentiles
converted to Judaism. And John in Matthew 3:9 warns the Israelites not
to place their trust in Abraham being their father. History rarely comes
into play in this book, but there are key moments when it does, with
profound results.<br />
<br />
M. MacArthur and Mayhue argue that II Peter 3:10 does not depict God
destroying the old heaven and earth then creating a new one, but rather
God purifying the old one (cp. Malachi 4). David Jeremiah makes a
similar argument in a book of his I am reading, <i>The Book of Signs</i>.<br />
<br />
Overall, this book is an interesting, edifying, and biblically-based
work on biblical doctrine. In contrast to many of MacArthur’s works,
this one lacks anecdotes. But it draws heavily on the details and
implications of Scripture. Some discussions are more interesting than
others. I, for one, thought that the book spent more time than I liked
on divine simplicity. Even in that discussion, however, MacArthur and
Mayhue are unafraid to tackle tough questions, such as the question of
whether divine simplicity (i.e., God does not “possess” attributes
because they are who he is, and God does not consist of parts)
contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. This book is a rewarding read.<br />
<br />
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.</div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-53537323516075385112021-05-24T08:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:27.885-04:00Book Write-Up: I Saw Poland Betrayed, by Arthur Bliss LaneArthur Bliss Lane. <i>I Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador Reports to the American People</i>. Western Islands, 1965.<br />
<br />
Arthur Bliss Lane was U.S. ambassador to Poland between 1944 and 1947. His book,<i> I Saw Poland Betrayed</i>,
was originally published in 1948. It was later republished by the
ultra-conservative John Birch Society as part of its Americanist
Library.<br />
<br />
I expected this book to be a right-wing attack on the Yalta and
Potsdam conferences, alleging that President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold
out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. This right-wing view was <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/the-myth-of-yalta/">challenged by William F. Buckley, Jr.</a>,
who pointed out that the Yalta agreement actually affirmed that Poland
would be independent and would have free elections. Stalin, however,
double-crossed Roosevelt, to Roosevelt’s chagrin.<br />
<br />
Lane’s book differed from my expectation. Lane acknowledges that the
Yalta and Potsdam conferences agreed that Poland would be free and
independent. The problem was that these agreements had significant
loopholes. The Soviet presence in Poland was already established and
significant after World War II, and Yalta and Potsdam did nothing to
counter that. Poland was also deprived of its richest land, compromising
its independence and economic viability. When the Communists triumphed
in Poland’s corrupt election, even over progressive competitors, the
U.S. accepted the results.<br />
<br />
Why did the U.S. betray Poland, according to Lane? Essentially, it
was a failure of nerve. FDR did not want to go to war with Russia over
Poland. Lane never mentions Communist infiltration in the U.S.
Government, but he does bemoan that liberals do not take Communism as
seriously as they did Nazism. Communism and Nazism are totalitarian
ideologies pursuing world domination, but liberals saw the latter, not
the former, as a threat to be stopped. Lane sees the Soviets as sinister
and untrustworthy: they even let the Nazis slaughter Poles to weaken
Poland and make it vulnerable to a Soviet takeover.<br />
<br />
Lane is slightly unclear about what the U.S. should have done
instead. He shrinks back from suggesting that the U.S. should have gone
to war with the Soviets, for there were diplomatic options. One such
option was to cut off aid to Poland, as long as it supported Communism.
At the same time, Lane observes that the U.S. had military superiority
shortly after World War II and asserts that it should have used it to
protect Poland from the Soviets.<br />
<br />
Lane’s discussion of Hitler, the Holocaust, and Jews stood out to me,
in light of Alt-right people I have been reading and hearing. Hitler is
portrayed as a brutal despot seeking world domination, whereas
Alt-right thinkers tend to assert that he merely sought land that
formerly belonged to Germany or that contained a significant number of
Germans. Lane notes that the Jewish population of Poland declined
precipitously after World War II, and he attributes that to Nazi gas
chambers. Lane accepts a former Nazi’s testimony that the Nazis used
Jewish corpses to create soap, a charge that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses">mainstream historians have since disputed</a>.
Lane also disagrees with anti-Semitic accusations that were made in
Poland, such as the idea that the Communists in Poland were mostly Jews
coming from Russia and that Jews were preferred by the Soviet-influenced
UNRRA.<br />
<br />
The book is not exactly an on-the-ground account of Poland’s fall to
the Soviets. It takes place mostly in the backrooms, among movers and
shakers. It could get technical, but it is useful in that it lucidly
lays out objections to the Yalta and Potsdam agreements.James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-53088920473876617082021-05-17T08:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:29.344-04:00Book Write-Up: Book Burning, by Cal Thomas<div class="entry-content">
Cal Thomas. <i>Book Burning</i>. Crossway, 1983.<br />
<br />
Cal Thomas is a conservative syndicated columnist. In 1983, he was
the communications director of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.<br />
<br />
I first learned of this book as a teenager, when I was reading books
in the Opposing Viewpoints series. The Opposing Viewpoints series
featured articles from different perspectives, right and left. One of
the books, “Censorship,” had a predictable article criticizing
right-wing censors, as it discussed the 1970’s textbook protests in
Kanawha County. Is that not what enters many people’s minds when they
hear “censorship”: the religious right? But then the book included an
article alleging that the left, too, practices censorship. This article
was an excerpt from Cal Thomas’s <i>Book Burning</i>.<br />
<br />
<i>Book Burning</i> undertakes four tasks.<br />
<br />
First, Thomas explains why freedom of speech is important. In fact,
Thomas regards it as a Christian virtue. He summarizes John Milton’s
Christian defense of it, favoring it over John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian
defense. People need not fear exposure to competing ideas, Thomas
argues, for only those who lack confidence in their own ideas desire to
censor other ideas. Thomas prefers to ground freedom of speech in theism
rather than utilitarianism because utilitarianism lacks a solid basis
for morality, making free speech merely a good idea that could become
dispensable; theism, by contrast, regards free speech as a God-given
right. Thomas supports diverse ideas in public libraries, akin to the
Fairness Doctrine that existed for radio and television.<br />
<br />
Second, Thomas defends the Moral Majority against the charge of
censorship. As Thomas points out, not every right-wing troublemaker who
tries to censor a book officially represents the Moral Majority! But
Thomas also sifts through right-wing rhetoric and activity to
distinguish what is legitimate from what is wrongheaded. As far as
Thomas is concerned, a book should not be censored just because it
contains illicit sex and violence, for sin is a part of life. But a book
that is appropriate for a teenager or an adult may not be appropriate
for children, who may lack the critical faculties to evaluate what they
are reading. Thomas also distances himself from the right-wing nostalgia
for the days of the Founding Fathers: Thomas does not want to go back
to those days, but he would like to see religion and traditional values
at least acknowledged in public libraries, public schools, and the
media.<br />
<br />
Third, Thomas argues that the left engages in censorship. References
to the traditional family, traditional gender roles, and Christianity
are omitted from public school textbooks, even though many Americans
embrace these things. Book reviewers, public libraries, bookstores, and
the New York Times’s bestseller list marginalize or ignore Christian
books, even though Christian books outsell some of the books that they
do choose to acknowledge. The national news media is baffled by
evangelicalism, as when Jimmy Carter claimed to be “born again.” And
movies and TV programs fail to depict Christianity positively, choosing
instead to depict Christians as hypocrites or as nutcases.<br />
<br />
Fourth, Thomas offers advice on what conservative Christians can do.
This includes becoming part of the system so as to influence it from the
inside, but also challenging the system from the outside.<br />
<br />
On whether Thomas’s concerns are still relevant thirty-seven years
later, my answer is “yes” and “no.” On the “yes” side, children are
exposed to sex and violence at an early age, through television and the
Internet. The entertainment media promote acts of which Thomas and
conservative Christians disapprove, such as homosexuality and premarital
and extramarital sex, at a more intense level than was the case when
Thomas wrote this book. Not only traditional gender roles, but also the
very concept of gender, have been challenged. On the “no” side, religion
has become more included in the mainstream media. TV shows and movies,
even outside of Christian media, have explored the spiritual side of
life in a sympathetic manner. Religious books, even conservative
Christian ones, are included on the New York Times’s bestseller list.<br />
<br />
This book is a thoughtful defense of free speech from a Christian conservative perspective. I have four critiques, though.<br />
<br />
First, I could not recognize Thomas’s allegation that public
libraries and bookstores marginalize or ignore Christianity. Perhaps
that is because I grew up in the Bible Belt, where Christian and
conservative books filled the shelves of public libraries and
bookstores. I recall even seeing some of the titles that Thomas
recommends (donated by the local right-to-life group).<br />
<br />
Second, Thomas seems to conflate public schools teaching children
about religion with public schools promoting religion. The former is
fine; the latter, legally-speaking, is a no-no. I recall a liberal
social studies teacher I had who included a unit on religions. He asked
if what he was doing was legal, and he replied “yes”: he is allowed to
educate students about different religions, since religion is a part of
life, but it is wrong for him to try to encourage his students to
convert to Judaism. Thomas, at least in this book, fails to recognize
that line, for he responds to the removal of religious rituals from
public schools by saying that religion is a part of life and thus should
be studied.<br />
<br />
Third, related to the above item, there is some ambiguity in Thomas’s
book about where he wants Christianity to be in the American system.
Does he support pluralism, in which Christianity is appreciated and
acknowledged among a diverse array of viewpoints? Or does he want
Christianity to have a more prominent and dominant role? He points out,
after all, that Christianity is a part of America’s heritage.<br />
<br />
Fourth, Thomas’s discussion of the Christian basis for free speech
perhaps would have been stronger had he addressed censorship in the
Bible, which the Bible endorses. There is not much tolerance in the
Bible for idolatry, for idolaters are to be killed. So much for freedom
of speech and religion.</div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-7911835668901730842021-05-15T23:00:00.004-04:002021-05-15T23:00:37.789-04:00Book Write-Up: Jeremiah, by Derek Kidner<p> Derek Kidner. <em>Jeremiah</em>. IVP Academic, 1987, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jeremiah-Kidner-Classic-Commentaries-Derek/dp/0830829350/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>Derek Kidner was Warden at the Tyndale House theological library in
Cambridge, England. This book is a reprint of his 1987 book, <em>The Message of Jeremiah</em>. It is largely homiletical yet quasi-scholarly in that it discusses historical background and context.</p>
<p>I decided to read this book because I wanted to see how Kidner, as a
Christian scholar, would address questions I have had about Jeremiah
that have perplexed me as a Christian. (Nowadays, I have largely put
these questions on the shelf and not worried about them so much, but I
am still curious as to how Christians address them, and if there is a
way to account for them while credibly accepting a robust model of the
divine inspiration of Scripture.)</p>
<p>Examples:</p>
<p>—-What is a Christian to do with Jeremiah’s prophecies that were not
fulfilled, according to historians? Jeremiah predicted that Babylon
would conquer Egypt in a devastating fashion, negatively impacting the
Jews who unwisely fled to Egypt, and that Babylon itself would be
conquered in like fashion. Neither took place, according to historians.
Moreover, Jeremiah predicted that the Jews would be in exile for seventy
years, but their exile was shorter than that: about fifty years. And,
while Jeremiah forecast a glorious spiritual, national, even
eschatological restoration for Israel after seventy years, her actual
restoration was not that glamorous. </p>
<p>—-Jeremiah 33:14-26 predicts, not only that God would restore the
Davidic dynasty and that it would be permanent, but also that God would
do the same for the Levitical priesthood. Does that contradict the
Christian view, exemplified in Hebrews, that the Old Testament
priesthood is null and void because Christ is now the high priest of the
new covenant?</p>
<p>Kidner, to his credit, attempts to address these questions. The
conditionality of prophecy on human repentance (Jeremiah 18:7-8) plays a
significant role in his attempt, as when he says that God shortened the
exile and lessened God’s punishment of Babylon out of mercy. In the
case of Babylon, Kidner speculates that God may have reduced the
severity of her punishment due to Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance in Daniel
4. Kidner also states that the destruction of Babylon recurs in the Book
of Revelation, meaning that an eschatological fulfillment may yet
occur. </p>
<p>In some cases, Kidner seeks to maintain that the prophecy, as stated,
actually came to pass. Nebuchadnezzar may not have decimated Egypt but
he did manage to replace her Pharaoh with someone more pliable.
Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar weakened Egypt, setting the stage for Persia to
further decimate her decades later. And, while Nebuchadnezzar himself
did not wipe out the Jewish refugees in Egypt, the Elephantine papyri
indicate that Jews in Egypt suffered persecution, and a fragment from
400 B.C.E. anticipates the destruction of the Jewish community.</p>
<p>Regarding Jeremiah’s prediction of a permanent Levitical priesthood
and whether that jibes with Christian belief in Jesus as high priest,
Kidner raises various considerations: the existence of priestly converts
to Christianity in the early church (Acts 4:36; 6:7), Isaiah 66:21’s
extension of the priesthood to Gentiles, and the fulfillment of the
priestly role by Christ and believers. Kidner also holds that Jeremiah
30:21 presents a Davidic king who would also serve as priest, which is
what Jesus is: a priest-king.</p>
<p>On the glorious and eschatological dimension of Jeremiah’s prophecies
of restoration, Kidner states that Jeremiah’s vision outstrips what
happened in Judah’s historical restoration, as Jeremiah seeks to focus
the readers’ attention on the Jerusalem above, not merely the earthly
Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Is this convincing? I am not inclined to dump on it. A person who
seeks to read Jeremiah from a faithful conservative Christian
perspective, while accounting for critical challenges, may find Kidner
helpful. Personally, in terms of whatever Christian perspective I hold
these days, I am open to there being some grain of truth, somewhere, in
what Kidner says. Indeed, Old Testament prophecies may have been
fulfilled in a spiritual or non-literal fashion, and hopes manifest in
Old Testament prophets, such as Gentiles coming to know the God of
Israel, have been realized in the Christian church.</p>
<p>Doubts still linger, however. What Kidner says about the seventy
years ignores the biblical assertion that the Jews indeed were in exile
for seventy years (see II Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12; 7:5),
whatever history says to the contrary. Jeremiah seems to say that
Nebuchadnezzar would decimate Egypt, not that Egypt would be decimated
decades later by someone else. Conditionality may be a factor in why
prophecies were not historically fulfilled as written, but when does
that answer become an ad hoc rationalization? </p>
<p>Some of Kidner’s solutions were predictable, while others raised
considerations that were new to me. Overall, the book has a dreamy and
homiletical tone, and much of what Kidner says was forgettable to me.
But, where he went out on a limb and addressed critical challenges, he
did rather well. </p><p>I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest. <br /></p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-81798835196286671022021-05-10T08:00:00.000-04:002022-05-18T13:20:30.628-04:00Book Write-Up: F.D.R., My Exploited Father-in-Law, by Curtis B. Dall<div class="entry-content">
Curtis B. Dall. <i>F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-in-Law</i>. Christian Crusade Publications, 1968.<br />
<br />
Curtis B. Dall was a stockbroker and the first husband of Anna
Roosevelt, the daughter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Christian Crusade, the publisher of this book, was a right-wing,
anti-Communist group, in the vein of the John Birch Society.<br />
<br />
Here are some thoughts and observations about this book:<br />
<br />
A. This book is not exactly a juicy, firsthand, behind-the-scenes
account of FDR’s relationship with one-worlder conspirators. Dall
essentially had the customary right-wing critiques of FDR—-that FDR sold
Eastern Europe to the Communists in World War II and at Yalta. But Dall
also happened to know the man, not deeply, mind you, but as an in-law
who interacted with FDR and occasionally advised him. Because Dall had
an affable relationship with FDR, he tended to give FDR the benefit of a
doubt, thinking that FDR was manipulated by one-worlders, Communists,
and international bankers rather than being an evil man in his own
right. This book still provides an anecdotal account of Dall’s
impressions of FDR, FDR’s family, FDR’s advisors, the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), and Bernard Baruch, based on his interactions and
experiences with them. Dall contrasts the public beliefs about these
people with his own experiences of them. He personally liked FDR,
Eleanor, and FDR’s mother but had a rather testy relationship with FDR’s
advisors, including Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, and Louis
Howe. (According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Bean_Dall">wikipedia</a>,
however, Eleanor in her correspondence with Anna manifested hatred
towards Dall.) Dall also talks about his interactions with Commander
George Earle, who sought in the last days of World War II to create an
alliance with anti-Nazi Germans so as to block Soviet incursions into
Europe, only to be rebuffed by FDR. And Dall interviews Admiral Husband
Kimmel, who was blamed for the Pearl Harbor attack and insisted that FDR
had prior knowledge of it, yet stripped the American base at Pearl
Harbor of its defenses, all in an attempt to get America into World War
II. Parts of this book are Dall’s speculations about what is going on
behind the scenes, but parts, such as his interviews of Earle and
Kimmel, contain a lot of facts. In addition, Dall’s interactions with
Baruch are an insightful look into how power and influence work, and how
one’s manipulation of power can negatively impact the lives of people
elsewhere in the world (i.e., China, whose economy was ruined due to
Baruch’s attempts to raise the price of gold).<br />
<br />
B. There are areas in which Dall overlaps with John Birchers and
Christian Crusaders, and areas in which he diverges from them. Like Gary
Allen (John Bircher), he believes that the international bankers are
using Communism to take over the world, which would then be handed over
to them. Dall takes swipes at the NAACP, believing that it is part of a
Communist plot to foment racial tension. The Council on Foreign
Relations is a culprit in the conspiracy, yet Dall states that most CFR
members are merely in it for the status; the true conspirators are
higher up in the organization. Dall goes a little further than John
Birchers do. Colonel House is treated by John Birchers as a culprit,
and, while Dall agrees with that, he speculates that House declined in
influence among the Insiders due to the failure of the League of
Nations. Dall speculates about the origins of the CFR: John Birchers say
House started it, whereas Rose Martin claimed Allen Dulles did. Dall
regards it as a post-World War I attempt to consolidate globalist
control of American foreign policy, after the failure of the League of
Nations. The international bankers initially supported Hitler but then turned on him. John Birchers never officially criticized Zionism, but Dall
does. Although he acknowledges that Morgenthau was anti-Zionist, the
conspirators, in his telling, were definitely Zionists. Dall states that
powerful Jewish interests agreed with Britain to get America into World War I, in exchange
for Britain giving them the state of Israel (Balfour Declaration). The
place of Zionism in one-worlder beliefs or in the machinations of the
conspiracy is never explored. While Dall admits that Joseph Kennedy was
opposed to American entry into World War II, he believes that Jewish
power sought to use the Kennedys as an Irish front for its own
machinations, to divert attention from Jewish power. Whereas John Birchers
and Christian Crusaders tended to blame Oswald for the Kennedy
Assassination, since Oswald was a Communist, Dall distrusts the Warren
Commission and believes in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Dall also
speaks highly of Huey Long, whom he believes was assassinated by leftist
interests. Huey Long opposed globalism, which John Birchers would like,
but he also embraced ideas that would be repulsive among right-wingers:
heavy taxation on corporations, sharing the wealth, and increased state
spending. Not surprisingly, wikipedia says that Dall was active in the
Liberty Lobby, which was populist and anti-Zionist.<br />
<br />
C. Dall was a stockbroker, and he does manifest knowledge of economics in this book, in terms of offering an explanation of what causes what and why. Like John Bircher types, he is critical of the Federal Reserve and its creation of fiat money. Where Dall is a little ambiguous is in his view on Wall Street. On the one hand, he seems supportive of it. FDR's campaign consulted him, seeking information about what is wrong with Wall Street, in order to create a boogeyman that FDR could oppose. Dall could not think of anything negative. Yet, on the other hand, Dall is critical of the international bankers and New York finance, who, presumably, are part of Wall Street. </div>
James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246501455640880632.post-56374803438428140232021-05-09T17:15:00.003-04:002021-05-09T17:15:27.703-04:00 Book Write-Up: Does God Exist?, by W. David Beck<p>W. David Beck. <em>Does God Exist? A History of Answers to the Question</em>. IVP Academic, 2021. Go <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-History-Question/dp/0830853006/">here</a> to purchase the book. </p>
<p>W. David Beck has a doctorate from Boston University and is emeritus professor of philosophy at Liberty University.</p>
<p>This book is about the classical arguments for the existence of God:
the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments.</p>
<p>Gary Habermas’s endorsement of the book is essentially my impression
as well: “Finally! A single volume that contains as a historical
narrative a compendium of arguments pertaining to God’s
existence—-pro-con, and from most religious perspectives—-all under one
cover. Fantastic!”</p>
<p>Indeed, this book summarizes the various versions of each argument
for God’s existence, as well as critiques of those versions. The chapter
about the cosmological argument even includes a Hindu version from the
Upanishads!</p>
<p>IVP’s web site places this book in the “intermediate” category, and
that is probably where it belongs. There were places in which the book
was over my head, yet, as someone who has read introductory philosophy, I
often had a general idea about what the chapters were about. A fuller
appreciation of this book may entail concentration on the part of the
reader and, even then, a novice or even one at an intermediate level may
get lost, at times.</p>
<p>Overall, Beck agrees with the classical arguments for the existence
of God. What is noteworthy is that he still does so, after summarizing
and critiquing the critiques of those arguments. Those who blithely
dismiss the classical arguments as obsolete and antiquated would do well
at least to give Beck’s book a reading.</p>
<p>To my recollection, some of Beck’s conclusions were not too profound.
He defends the cosmological argument by differentiating between
conceptual infinity (as exists in mathematics) and actual infinity, the
latter of which is impossible for the cosmos, explaining why it needed a
beginning and, thus, a creator. That makes sense. The chapter on the
teleological argument dismisses the relevance of alternate universes by
saying that there is no evidence for them but also that, even if they do
exist, they fail to undermine the teleological argument. The chances of
everything coming together for human existence even in one universe are
small, explaining the need for a creator. There, I am not as convinced.
I sympathize with a critic of the teleological argument whom Beck
quotes, who essentially says that, the more universes there are, the
greater the chance that at least one of those universes can have life
and order, without needing a divine explanation.</p>
<p>But, of course, there may be nuances that I am missing here.</p>
<p>Some elliptical parts of the book that stand out to me:</p>
<p>—-Beck summarizes the debate between Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston, author of the legendary series of books <em>A History of Philosophy</em>, and Bertrand Russell, who wrote the bluntly titled <em>Why I Am Not a Christian</em>.
Russell, in disputing the cosmological argument, expresses problems
with such concepts as contingent and necessary being and sufficient
reason. Beck seems to think that Russell is being evasive and pedantic,
but, were I to understand what Russell is saying, would I see merit in
his points?</p>
<p>—-Perhaps a gaping hole in my understanding concerns Beck’s treatment
of the ontological argument. A common objection to the ontological
argument is that concept does not mean reality: just because the
greatest being one can conceive must exist to be the greatest being,
that does not mean that this greatest being exists. Beck says, and
shows, that this objection is attacking a strawperson, that Anselm never
suggested that concept means reality. What, then, is the ontological
argument?</p>
<p>The last chapter briefly summarizes and suggests resources about
other arguments for the existence of God. Beck does not go into the
“ins” and “outs” of these arguments, but he likely does not intend to do
so, at least not here. Some of what he suggests piques my interest, as
his reference to scholarly sources that address the question of what
religious experiences are authoritative and which are not. Another
question in my mind concerns the universal argument for God’s existence:
surely philosophers and scholars who support this argument realize that
there are religions in the world that lack a concept of a supreme
deity. How do they account for that?</p>
<p>The book is excellent for reference precisely because it is
comprehensive, which is why I will keep it rather than donating it to
the Goodwill.</p>
<p>I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.</p>James Patehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.com