Fallen and Flawed

A Milton-Style [Mawkishly Emotional?] Mother’s Day

I’m trying NOT to make weekend posting a habit, but I couldn’t resist sharing this with you on Mother’s Day.

It’s just TOO quaint.

You got to love epic poems that tackle fantastic topics like the biblical Fall…

Not only are they sweeping in imagination, but their language is often noble, polished and–absurd? Frightening? Mawkishly sentimental because of drunkenness?

I don’t have the answer, but John Milton’s Paradise Lost has got such language. Let me give you an example.

The setting is the garden of Eden. It’s morning and Adam is leaning over Eve who is still sleeping. This is what he says:

This, my friend’s is how he awoke her. Ever said THAT to your wife as she wakes up? Yeah. I didn’t think so.

Adam is making us look pretty bad, men. But wait, women, you’re not off the hook. Here’s how Eve responded:

O Sole in whom my thoughts find all repose, My Glorie, my Perfection, glad I see Thy face,

My Glorie? My Perfection? How dreamy!

Eve goes on to relate a bad dream she had and of course Adam comforts her…all very charming deeds in a garden bower that makes a Martha Stewart-designed bedroom look like a living space you’d find in a half-way house.

According to Milton, the mother of creation got top-notch treatment. Something we can seriously regard when it comes to our own mother’s AND wives this holiday Sunday.

So let’s practice husbands: “Awake My fairest, my espous’d, my latest found, Heaven’s last best gift, my ever new delight.”

And what about a version for mothers? Can you write something? Use Adam’s line as a template. Happy Mother’s Day!

Tags: Mother's Day, Poetry

Life-Sized Horse Puppets, Free Book and Odd Prizes [Link Happy 5.7.10]

In London, A Stirring ‘War Horse’ Of A Drama
Life-sized horse puppets and a compelling story makes this both a visual and emotional powerhouse of a play.

The Hole in Our Gospel
[Free Audio Book from Christian Audio] World Vision CEO Richard Stearn uses his personal-professional story to explore the hollow gospel our church culture promotes.  [You have to give up your email address to get it, but it's worth it.]

BREAKING: Large Air Spill at Wind Farm
Wonderful little hoax paying tribute to the BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf.

The Wild Faith of Bear Grylls
Relevant magazine’s cover story on Man v. Wild star. This is one of Relevant’s better interviews.

10 Ways Christians Tend to Fail
While John Shore’s occasional touchy, near-snooty blog posts can make my skin crawl, this one demonstrates he gets the problem with our contemporary church culture.

A Brilliant Idea from the United Nations
Didn’t think it was possible, did you? The Economist  asks, “Why let only one despot endow and name a new prize when so many others deserve acclaim?”

Fallen and Flawed Makes Top 98 Christian Blogs
I have a very vague idea of who Christian Counseling Degree.org is, but heck–I’ll take any recognition I can get. And who’s going to complain about being lumped in with celebs like Jon Acuff, Joel Osteen and Tim Challies?

Just Pray on the National Day of Prayer
Matter-of-fact article that argues prayer is a lifestyle–not an annual event.

By the way, DON’T forget MOTHER’S DAY. It’s this Sunday. Buy a gift. Now.

Tags: Blogs

Annihilationism [A Near-Definitive Guide]

Annihilationism is the belief that the final fate of those who are not saved is literal and final destruction…

A belief that runs against the traditional Christian understanding of hell.

So naturally as I worked through the doctrine of hell during my stint on last things, in the back of my mind I considered whether I’d address annihilationism.

It was bound to come up at some point, right?

And indeed, it did.

But when I went to do my homework, I realized quite quickly that I couldn’t possibly do the topic justice…

A handful of people before me have already answered all the arguments for annihilationism so much better than this half-baked intellectual could.

How can I add anything original to the discussion? Fact is, I couldn’t.

So instead I decided to pull together all the resources I could possibly find online–and share them with you.

In case you care, of course. [I know you do.]

Listen: Everything that I list here is going to be critical of annihilationism. But everything I list here is also very conversant with the advocates and arguments for annihilationism.

In other words, you can learn the arguments of annihilation advocates from reading the objections.

Of course nothing beats first-hand interaction–that is if you have the time. Enjoy.

Articles on Annihilationism

The Destruction of Hell Destroyed: Annihilationism Examined
Jeff Spencer concludes the the moral, linguistic, and exegetical arguments for the doctrine of annihilation all fall to the ground due to a lack of reason, lack of lexical evidence, and a lack of good, solid exegesis.

Is Hell Forever?
Stanley J. Grenz writes a nice, 2-page summary of annihilationism and it’s problems for Christianity Today.

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell: Part One | Part Two
In a two part series, Alan W. Gomes examined the scriptural teaching on the doctrine of hell, paying particular attention to key passages from the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Revelation.

Has Robert A. Peterson Defeated Annihilationism?
Glenn Peoples examines and challenges Peterson’s argument against annihilationism–and says it fails.

Is Hell Forever?
Professor of Theology at Southern Baptists Theological Seminary Milliard Erikson takes a swing at annihilationism.

Evangelical Annihilation in Review by J. I Packer

Unless Jesus Says Otherwise Hell Exists Asserts Evangelical Report
British group acknowledges differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of hell must be preached again.

United Kingdom: Hell Isn’t Obsolete, Brits Say
The reality of hell, and the teaching that it is “occupied to some degree,” is reaffirmed in a 140-page report published in April by the Evangelical Alliance of the United Kingdom.

Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire
What is hell—eternal torment or annihilation? Robert A. Peterson looks at the Evangelical Alliance’s The Nature of Hell.

The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism
Robert A. Peterson explores the theological methods of Edward Fudge, defender of annihilationism.

Destroyed for Ever
Tony Gray argues that annihilation is at the very least an option which ought to be considered fairly and honestly.

Eternal Punishment and John Stott
Kenneth MacLeod addresses Stott’s suggestion that the topic requires more humility.

B. B. Warfield on Annihilationism
Monergism has got a nice layout of this article by Warfield.

An Examination of Annihilationism
A systematic, detailed, scriptural argument against annihilationism by James Patrick Holding. Probably one of the best I’ve encountered.

Hell and Annihilationism
Sam Storms works over annihilationism using Revelation 14.

Is Hell Real or Simply Annihilation?
Nothing new to add to the discussion except a table with the scriptural realities of hell–which you might find helpful.

We Reject the Doctrine of the Annihilation of the Wicked
A nice creed-style rejection of annihilationism by J. H. Gosden found in What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe.

The Annihilation of Hell [1]
Martin Downes shares an excerpt of an interview with Robert A. Peterson [found in his book Risking the Truth].

The Annihilation of Hell [2]
Then Downes shares even more of that interview.

Historical Mentions of Annihilationism

Dialog with Trypho
Embryonic forms of conditional immortality can be found in the writing of Justin Martyr [d. 165].

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magneseans
Ignatius of Antioch [d. 107] is also supposed to be a conditionalist according to some conditionalist writers.

Against the Heathens
Some suggest it is also found in the writings of Arnobius [d. 330]. See paragraph 61, last sentence.

Books on Annihilationism

The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment by Harry Buis

Four Views on Hell Contributions by Walvoord, Crockett, Hayes and Pinnock

Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment Contributions by Beale, Block, Ferguson, Mohler, Moo, Packer and Yarbough

Repent or Perish: With a Special Reference to the Conservative Attack on Hell by John Gerstner

Death And The Afterlife by Robert Morey

The Doctrine of Endless Punishment by William Greenough Thayer Shedd

Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert A. Peterson

Two Views of Hell A theological discussion of annihilationism between Robert A. Peterson [against] and Edward Fudge [for].

Risking The truth: Handling error in the church by Martin Downes Contains the interview with Robert A. Peterson.

Your Turn

If you know of a resource not included here [especially mp3s, which I couldn't find anywhere], please share in the comments. I’ll add to them to this post and give you credit.

Tags: Annihilation, Hell

9 Reasons Why You Should Read More Old Books

If you’re like me, you get anxious and marginally depressed when you see all the new books published each year.

It can happen at Barnes and Noble or while scanning the New York Times bestseller lists.

But the result is always the same: an acute sense of failure. How in the world can I read all of these books?

Fortunately, most books published each year will end up on the remainder pile–forgotten, useless and cheap.

Really cheap.

And while reading new books is a great way to stay on top of the latest ideas, I think it’s much better to make a habit of reading older books.

Here are nine reasons why. Enjoy!

1. Past the classic test.
Old books are books with ideas and stories that endure for 50, 100–even thousands of years. When you read an old book, you can be confident it’s quality writing. Not so with new books.

2. Fewer old books.
Random House’s list of the 100 best novels [all classics, though that could change in 50 years] can be read in one year. You couldn’t possibly manage to do that will all the new fiction published in one year.

3. Look odd, somewhat-sophisticated.
Reading classics adds a depth to your cocktail conversations you can’t get from new books. “You know, while I was reading Oedipus this morning, I thought of a way to solve our modern transit problem. All we have to do is….” See how that works? You just look cool.

4. Learn about the past.
Classic novels, for instance, can teach you about a particular time of history–whether it’s reading Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby [1920s] or Augustine’s City of God [100 BC to 400 AD]–while you’re enjoying yourself.

5. Cheaper.
If you’re the type of worm who likes to own all your books but don’t have deep pockets, then Barnes and Noble re-packages old books in hardcovers and sells them for less than $10. You can also almost always find used copies of old books on Amazon.

6. Free.
Since most classics are in the public domain, you can find them free at many sources online, like the Project Gutenberg [print versions] or LibriVox [audio versions].

7. Available at your library.
Naturally you have a better chance of finding old books at your library. How many times have you been on a waiting list for new, popular fiction? Too many, I’m sure.

8. Lots of commentary.
One of the things I enjoyed about reading Steinbeck’s Of Mice or Men or Dickens Bleak House was hunting down the surrounding discussion on those books. The depth of supporting literature on old books grossly out weighs that of new.

9. Quality is better.
If it’s a classic, this is obvious. Why else would it endure? But what makes a new book a classic? Themes that touch all people across time is one trait. Another trait is a sense of novelty. The book explores an idea for the first time of experiments with an new technique.

Your turn. What reasons can you think of that would convince someone to read more old books? Did I miss anything?

And what do you think make books like Luther’s Bondage of the Will or Paul Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress classic? What qualities make a story like Homer’s Iliad timeless?

Please share. I look forward to your thoughts.

Tags: Books, Classics, Reading

Russell’s Tea Pot, Snuggies and Talking Frogs

**Guest post by Rob Powell.**

Bertrand Russell was a genius.

He had a bibliography as long as his mustache, was a pioneer in several fields and employed a sharp mind–and even sharper wit.

For all his achievements though he may be best remembered in internet culture today for his teapot analogy…

It goes a little something like this:

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

“But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. “

His point is well taken, that you can’t prove a negative–but nobody believes there is a vessel of 3 degree Kelvin Earl Gray floating around between the Earth and Mars.

Russell goes on to say that:

“If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. “

Dr. Russell is implying that the only reason we don’t think it’s crazy to believe in God (who’s negation we can’t prove either) and not the teapot is that our parents, pastors and polite society have brainwashed us into thinking God is real.

In reality, Russell would say, God is no more real than a celestial teapot, unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

He’s just more socially acceptable.

So what’s the difference between God and this imaginary teapot–and where does this cute little analogy ultimately break down? Let’s take a look.

The Brittle Tea Pot Analogy

There are many hidden assumptions to this comparison but a primary one is that if something is real then science should be able to document it.

We’ve talked about scientism before because it has been a perennial favorite amongst the “brights” since the Enlightenment.

So Russell makes his teapot so far and distant that science can’t detect it–but that doesn’t make it God-like.

In theory we could go to the coordinates of the teapot and take it’s picture. Even if we didn’t know exactly where it was we could scour the range of coordinates and given enough time and effort we could find it or rule out its being in a certain area or at the very least based on its size and the volume it’s contained in say we are X% sure it’s not between Earth and Mars.

But since God is unembodied we could know the exact location of every quark in the universe and still not know where God is and He could still be real or at least authentic to the description given to Him in those ancient texts.

What Russell has done is placed on God the burden of being scientifically detectable in order to be real. But he offers no reason why God can’t exist without fulfilling this requirement?

Is God less God-like if He is uncaliperable?

Dr. Russell is also comparing something with no proof for its existence outside of his fanciful testimony meant to be a zinger to something who’s existence we do have good arguments for.

The ontological, teleological, cosmological, moral…these arguments have kept our greatest thinkers busy for over a thousand centuries.

The list of theists is long and illustrious and will make any honest skeptic pause.

This doesn’t make God real but it does mean that you can be a rational human being and believe in God. Not so much for his teapot.

The Tea Pot Is Under Strain

Let’s ask a question: When is lack of evidence evidence of lack?

Suppose you enter a cozy one room cabin and someone asks you if there are any Kodiak bears in the room. If you don’t see, hear, or smell any Kodiak bears you can assert with confidence that there are no Kodiak bears in the cabin.

But what if you enter the cabin and someone asks you if there are any gnats in the room? You can stare and listen but you will have a much shakier foundation to affirm that there are no gnats in the cabin.

In the first case we can go easily from “I don’t see any bears” to “there are no bears”. In the second case we can only go from “I don’t see any gnats” to “I don’t know if there are any gnats.”

The difference between the two is our epistemic situation, which in broad terms is the limits on our ability to know something through our primary sources of knowing (sense, memory and reason).

Using the terms we usually do around here we could say we’re atheistic about bears in the cabin but remain agnostics about the gnats.

Three Reasons for Our Evidence of God

What Russell is trying to do is stretch our atheism about the teapot into atheism about God. But is that a legitimate analogy? In order for that argument to work two criteria have to be met.

1. If God exists then we would expect there to be evidence for God.

2. If there is evidence for God then we would expect to have knowledge of this evidence.

We deny the bears in the cabin because we expect sufficient evidence to know if bears were in the cabin–but we lack it.

We are less sure about the gnats because even though we lack evidence for them we wouldn’t necessarily expect to have any evidence if they were there.

So with respect to God we would have to expect to have evidence of His existence but lack it to affirm atheism.

But should the skeptic expect to have this evidence? Here’s three reasons why they shouldn’t.

1. Sin
People are fallen and flawed and have willfully and purposefully closed their eyes toward God. We do this because we are proud, licentious, and wicked people in desperate need of a savior.

A crystal clear example of this is atheist Thomas Nagel saying, ” I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers… It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want a universe like that.”

Could a mindset like that cause him to knowingly or not close his eyes to evidence for God?

2. Demands for unreasonable types of evidence.
God could better prove His existence by painting a vibrant picture of Jesus in a different color Snuggie up in the clouds every Sunday from 11 to noon.

Or maybe he could cause frogs to say John 3:16 instead of “ribbit”.

Whatever the demand the implication is that God has a moral obligation to people to make Himself more clearly–even ridiculously!–evident because then more people would believe in God and avoid hell.

This leads us to the last reason.

3. Humble versus forced submission to God.
God doesn’t desire that people merely acknowledge His reality but that they have a redemptive, meaningful, ongoing relationship with Him. He wants to be every bit of our Lord and Father–not just our acknowledged reality.

Would cloudy Snuggie clad saviors and talking frogs lead more people to this type of relationship? Maybe, but I doubt it. We are still bent toward evil and incapable of doing good on our own.

It might just lead to more people like the demons who acknowledge Him but refuse to submit to his authority.

What separates God from Santa Claus, tooth fairies, teapots, and other imaginary beings is that where we can’t necessarily expect to know about evidence for God we would expect to know about evidence for the others.

But our epistemic situation is better.

Evidence of God Superior to Evidence for Tea Pots

We would expect to find factories at the North Pole, orphans getting quarters under their pillows and astronauts telling us about the teapot they left on the wing of Mariner IV.

Now I’ll admit the other option for the teapot could be that it just spontaneously popped into being from nothing in a solar orbit and while that would be extremely more likely than the entire universe doing the same trick (which atheists also believe) nobody really believes that could happen (which makes you wonder why it’s okay for the universe but not a measly teapot).

Which leads me to one final thought.

The crux of this argument is that there is no good reason to believe in the teapot other than widespread indoctrination. Russell is asserting that blind fideism puts faith and reason at odds–and reason must triumph.

You knew we would get here eventually but enter Jesus as the anti-teapot. The uniter of heart and mind.

God saw fit to come to earth in the form of Jesus and become very detectable so that we might know Him, repent, believe, and live in redeemed relationship with Him.

The historicity of the life of Christ allows us to have a reasonable faith. We can study His life, His words, and the lives of the people He interacted with.

In Russell’s analogy he’s given us no reason to believe him about the teapot. If the teapot’s creator had authored a now ancient text describing the out of sight teapot we could study it.

If we had reason to believe the author we’d have reason to believe in the teapot. The same must be said for Jesus. But in Jesus’ case, his life, death and resurrection exist not as dogma but as historical evidence. In other words, facts. Not so for the tea pot.

Tags: Evidence, Russell, Tea Pot