J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick has an MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. His interests include theology, philosophy of religion--particularly the existence of God--astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.
J.W. Wartick has written 755 posts for J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason"

Really Recommended Posts 4/17/15- Aquinas, Creationism, Abortion, and more!

postSpring is here for real this time (maybe?). That means that my family gets to go on long walks outside, which is wonderful. What else is wonderful? Sharing some awesome posts with you, dear readers! Here’s another round of RRP that includes posts on Aquinas, science fiction, creationism, men and women, and arguments for abortion (debunked). Check them out, and let me know what you think!

Soft Tissue in Mollusk Fossils and the Case for a Young Earth– Does soft tissue prove that the earth is, in fact, only a few thousand years old? Here is an analysis of an argument put forward for some for the position of young earth creationism.

Bad Pro-Choice Arguments– There are some really poor arguments out there for all kinds of positions. Here is an analysis of some bad arguments for the pro-choice position.

Three Reasons I believe Men and Women are Equal Co-Laborers in God’s Kingdom– Why believe that men and women should work side-by-side in pastoral (and other) ministry? Here are three reasons.

Spec[ulative]-Fic[tion] Subgenres: Paranormal & Supernatural– Christian speculative fiction [read= fantasy/sci-fi] publisher Enclave has put out this post on the genres of paranormal and supernaturalism in fiction. It’s worth a read to see some interesting distinctions.

Was Aquinas a Materialist?– Edward Feser analyzes the claim that Thomas Aquinas was a materialist when it comes to human nature.

Book Review: “Faith, Freedom, and the Spirit” by Paul Molnar

ffs-molnarPaul Molnar’s Faith, Freedom and the Spirit is an extremely ambitious project. Its main thrust is the exploration of Trinitarian theology–particularly a distinction between the economic and immanent Trinity–in light of Torrance, Barth, and others.

The book is packed with insights into numerous topics, whether readers are interested in learning more about Barth and Torrance (and Rahner) or the relations within the Trinity, Molnar sweeps broadly but takes the time to dissect many topics in helpful ways.

A primary topic is how we relate to God, and through Barth (though alongside other theologians), Molnar argues that God is perfectly free in relation to us and frees us through grace. It is not our work that saves us but rather God entirely and miraculously revealing Himself to us through Christ by the power of the Spirit.

Throughout the entire book, the aforementioned theologians are highlighted, often providing readers with lengthy quotes and expositions of their positions in order to lend more detail and analysis to topics related to the Trinity.

There seems to be a bit bit too much discussion of various other scholars’ dissent from Molnar’s position or misunderstanding it. At times it reads as though there are journal articles put into the book rather than developing as a book itself. Responses to specific authors seem to often be esoteric rather than helpful, though I’m sure in the broader project Molnar is tracing, it makes sense.

Another downside is that it seems that at a few points the “low hanging fruit” is that which is engaged. For example, Molnar’s discussion of eternal subordination was interesting–in particular his insight from Barth and Torrance about how such a position confuses the immanent and economic Trinity–but then he went on to focus on specific views of select scholars which were blatantly subordinationist in the Arian sense rather than on some of the more nuanced approaches of others. Another example is his discussion of natural theology, which did not seem to take into account the various ways in which Barth’s attack on the notion are undermined by other considerations.

Overall, Faith, Freedom and the Spirit is worthy of careful consideration. Readers may not always find it helpful in its discussion of specific scholars, but the broader theme of the economic Trinity and the channeling and condensing of the thought of several important theologians makes it well worth the time and effort to read it.

The Good

+Insight into many aspects of the economic and immanent Trinity
+Deeply thought-provoking
+Solid critique of some views of the Trinity which (potentially or actually) stray from orthodoxy

The Bad

-A few too many rabbit trails make it feel like pieced-together journal articles at times
-Fails to distinguish adequately between types of apologetics
-At times feels repetitious

I received a review copy of the book from InterVarsity. I was not required to give any kind of review whatsoever. My thanks to the publisher for the book.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Source

Paul D. Molnar, Faith, Freedom and the Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015). 

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The “Dependency” Argument for Abortion: A Dilemma

PersonhoodSupremeCourtOne common argument for the pro-choice position is what I shall call the “dependency” argument for abortion. This argument suggests that because the unborn is dependent in a unique way upon the mother, abortion is permissible. For example, one might argue that because a fetus cannot survive without the direct use of the mother’s body, the unborn does not have a right to life. The status of dependency upon another being in such an intimate and unique fashion means that abortion is permissible, according to this argument.

One way to respond to this argument is to show that the dependency of the unborn upon the mother is not relevantly unique. For example, one may cite the dependency of a newborn upon his or her parents, of a person hooked up to an artificial heart or some other dependency-creating situation. However, here we will consider what I think is a more direct and intractable problem for the abortion advocate. Namely, that the dependency argument yields an inescapable dilemma for their position.

The Thought Experiment

Suppose we were able to create artificial wombs–something which doesn’t seem all that preposterous given that it’s being worked on right now–to which we were able to move the unborn at any point up to birth and allow to grow there. In this case, the growing being is not dependent upon its mother or even any woman or person. We may cut out the people doing maintenance on the artificial wombs by having some kind of automated maintenance system.

The Dilemma

Would it be permissible to terminate the unborn within the artificial womb?

If so, then the grounding for abortion on the notion that the unborn is in a relevantly dependent situation related to the mother cannot be correct. For in this case the unborn is not in that dependent situation, yet the pro-choice advocate still maintains a right to abort. If it is not permissible, then there must be some reason why it is not permissible to abort once the unborn is no longer within the mother, and this reason would have to be one that could, in a way that is not ad hoc, not apply to the unborn when inside the mother.

I think this is a serious dilemma for those who use the “dependency” argument in order to ground objections to abortion.

Answering the Dilemma

Perhaps one might try to answer the dilemma by embracing the second horn of the dilemma and suggesting that once the dependency situation is removed, then the right to abort is also removed. However, the same type of dependency which the unborn is in with the mother has simply been transferred to an artificial womb. Perhaps, however, one cannot be relevantly (morally) dependent upon a machine. But this is to effectively beg the question, for the very grounds of the pro-choice argument is that it is dependency which creates a state of permissive abortion. Perhaps they could modify their stance and say that it is actually dependency upon the mother alone. But here is where the danger of an “ad hoc” stance rears its ugly head, because the relevant criterion–dependency–is maintained while it is the location of the unborn which has shifted. If dependency is alleged to be enough to ground abortion rights, then smuggling in additional premises alongside dependency defeats the initial argument.

The point needs to be emphasized: I think this is the best route for the pro-choice advocate to try to go to avoid the conclusions of the dilemma, but if they do go down this route it raises even more questions for their position. First, if we suppose that dependency must be on a person to be morally relevant, than it undermines the notion of dependency as the reasoning for allowing abortion to begin with. For, in this case, it would be the person grounding the moral status, not the dependency. Second, to embrace this horn means that the pro-choice advocate is effectively granting that the unborn has some right to live, so long as it is not in this relevant state of dependency. This is a startling admission, and it must be emphasized that this means, frankly, that according to the pro-choice advocate a being with a right to live has that right suspended so long as a valid “dependency criterion” can be met. The implications of this would be enormous.

Moreover, if we grant that the second horn may be embraced by means of saying that if dependency is removed, then it follows that any possible way to remove the dependency situation, if such a way could become reality, makes abortion impermissible.

Free Wombs?

Now, suppose further there were a foundation that was willing and able to pay for anyone (anywhere and anytime) to move their unborn into an artificial womb rather than abort the fetus. For the sake of argument, we will assume this is a risk-free type of procedure, with relevant clinical test results, etc., etc. This strengthens the dilemma posed above because at this point, there is effectively no dependency upon mothers beyond conception. For, the moment a woman finds she is pregnant, she could phone this foundation and transfer the unborn to an artificial womb, relinquish any claim to parental rights, and be done. But if this were the case, then dependency would in a sense no longer exist. The unwanted pregnancy could immediately be ended without the termination of the fetus.

Once again, it seems that in this situation only the location of the unborn remains relevant, should the pro-choice advocate wish to maintain the right to abort. The mother could choose to end her pregnancy by transferring the unborn and all rights/knowledge of/etc. thereof elsewhere at any point.

I realize that some may object and say that having a surgical procedure is an inconvenience, no matter how safe, quick, successful, secret, etc. it might be. But at that point I must wonder where the line is drawn for abortion. After all, if the scenario envisioned above really did exist, and someone really did want to maintain the right to abort, what they would have to be saying is that something thought to be inconvenient alone is enough to abort. Setting aside the fact that abortion is also a procedure–and one with risks–at this point I think I would point out that the dependency argument has been shown to be mistaken, because the pro-choice advocate must now base his or her argument upon the “convenience” of the mother.

Conclusion

It appears to me that the only recourse the pro-choice advocate has with regard to the dependency argument is to argue that location really is a relevant criterion for allowing for abortion. But in that case, dependency ceases to be the factor which grounds the right to abort, and thus the dependency argument fails.

I’m fairly sure I’ve read a similar argument to the one I present here somewhere. However, I do not remember where I may have read it and regret to omit a reference to it here.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Pro-life– I have written a number of posts advocating the pro-life position. See, in particular, “From conception, a human” and “The issue at the heart of the abortion debate.”

The image is courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Is Natural Theology Excluded for Apologetics? – Sunday Quote!+

ffs-molnarHere’s a special edition Sunday Quote which features a more extended discussion. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Is Natural Theology Excluded for Apologetics?

Paul Molnar’s Faith, Freedom and the Spirit is a massive study on the Trinity–specifically the economic Trinity–with much insight from contemporary theology. Early on, Molnar makes a statement which, as a trained Christian apologist, seemed a bit like “fightin’ words”:

If contemporary theologians were to make explicit the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling our knowledge of the triune God, then there could be wide agreement that natural theology of whatever stripe is not only unhelpful but is directly excluded from any serious understanding of theological epistemology. (82)

Now, “natural theology” is, according to Justo Gonzalez’s Essential Theological Terms, “A theology that claims to be based on the natural gifts of the human mind, and on the ‘general revelation’ granted to all… rather than on a ‘special revelation’ in Scripture or Jesus Christ” (118). Natural theology, that is, is the attempt to show that God exists and certain other truths through looking at the world. From this quote, it seems that Molnar is arguing that if we had a better notion of the role of the Holy Spirit, we would basically think that natural theology is worthless related to knowledge of God.

Molnar develops this notion further throughout the next 50 pages or so. His argument basically is that if we acknowledge that it is the Holy Spirit who enables faith and knowledge of God, then any “knowledge” of God which is not directly through faith (i.e. through something like a cosmological argument) is not objective knowledge of God.

Although some of what Molnar argues resonates with me–particularly the notion that the Holy Spirit is the one who imparts faith rather than it being some kind of choice we make–I think that his dismissal of natural theology is unnecessary and mistaken. First, the most obvious question to be asked is whether the Spirit can use natural theology to create faith. If it is the case that the Holy Spirit can work through natural theology–something which seems to be clearly correct to me–then the objection that natural theology ignores the role of the Spirit is mistaken.

Second, Molnar’s argument seems to rely on a concept of natural theology which is entirely about trying to impart knowledge of God to those who do not have faith. This, however, ignores the use of apologetics in strengthening the faith of believers. Natural theology can be a valuable tool for those who have faith to pursue the call of 1 Peter 3:15 and have a reason for the hope within them. Whatever one’s view of whether natural theology can bring people to the true God, it seems that it can and should be used for believers to explore the natural world and bolster their faith.

Third and finally, it seems to me that Romans 1 in particular demonstrates that natural theology is not a worthless project. If God’s invisible attributes are capable of being discovered in the things God has made, then surely natural theology has some value in tracing God’s handiwork.

Should we think that natural theology is a failed project? Can it have other uses like those I listed? Is it possible to go from God to Christ? What of the role of the Spirit in apologetics?

Faith, Freedom and the Spirit is a thoroughly thought-provoking read which I recommend to those interested in the doctrine of the Trinity. It has certainly gotten my wheels turning!

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Paul D. Molnar, Faith, Freedom and the Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015). 

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 4/10/15- raising a son, tropical islands, self-harm, and more!

postAnother round of awesome posts for you, dear readers. Please keep me in your prayers as I have a kidney stone. Sad me. But happy you, because you have some great reading ahead! Self-harm, Easter, raising a son, tropical islands and creationism are all featured topics this week. Let me know your thoughts in the comments here, and be sure to let the authors of the posts know as well.

My Depression and Self Harm vs. Jesus Passion and Sacrifice– Christianity can speak to people in all walks of life and circumstances. Here is a beautiful post that compares the struggles of someone dealing with self-harm to the hope found in the sufferings and death of Christ.

Thoughts on Raising a Son– What is it like to raise a son in our day and world? My wife shares some thoughts on raising a son and the difficulties we face as parents. How can we teach him to not give in to a culture of inequalities?

My Favorite Atheist Easter Memes of 2015– Here, Jason Wisdom shares and analyzes a number of Easter memes atheists put out to “celebrate” this most holy day–the resurrection of God Incarnate. He provides some thoughtful insights into the mindset behind them.

Origins of a Tropical Island – The long road from lava to colonization– Do the formation of islands and their ecology fit into a young earth paradigm? Short answer: no. Check out this post for some reasons why.

The Greatest Risk of All– It is often noted that women were the first evangelists. Does this have any implications for our faith?

Is Middle Knowledge Uncontroversial?

luis-de-molina-2I was reading a recent blog post at one of the sites from which I read every post–the Pastor Matt blog–and discovered a point of some importance for those interested in the debate over omniscience and divine foreknowledge. His post “Middle Knowledge Misunderstood” is a brief introduction to the concept of middle knowledge. My focus is not going to be on that topic so much as on a claim made in the article: that middle knowledge is uncontroversial. Simply put, this claim is mistaken. Middle knowledge is the subject of much debate to this day.

Middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom: specifically, God’s knowledge of “If x, then y” in regards to human and other created beings’ freedom. It is more than that, and yes I am simplifying this quite a bit.

Middle knowledge has been the subject of no little amount of my efforts in studying, and when I read the claim that it is uncontroversial, I was taken aback. Frankly, to say that middle knowledge is not controversial is just entirely mistaken. I shall now demonstrate that point.

First, middle knowledge is controversial among those who deny that God has absolute knowledge of the future, namely, open theists. William Hasker, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, and other open theists each explicitly deny the existence of these counterfactuals that make up middle knowledge. Greg Boyd, another prominent open theist, argues in multiple places that the “would” counterfactuals of middle knowledge (i.e. in situation x, person would do y) should instead be “might” counterfactuals because “would” counterfactuals can have no truth value (see, for example, his response to William Lane Craig in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2001).

Second, middle knowledge is controversial among Calvinists. Paul Helm, a noted Calvinist philosopher, writes:

Since the Reformed held that all that occurs is unconditionally decreed by God and that men and women are responsible for their actions, they saw no need for a third kind of divine knowledge, a middle knowledge, which depended upon God foreseeing what possible people would freely do in certain circumstances.

In other words, middle knowledge is superfluous. Helm goes on to state as much:

Not only is middle knowledge unnecessary to an all-knowing, all-decreeing God, but the Molinists’ conception of free will makes it impossible for God to exercise providential control over his creation. Why? Because men and women would be free to resist His decree.

I would contend that most any theological determinist should hold to a similar belief regarding middle knowledge. On such a position, middle knowledge is unnecessary and indeed contrary to their entire system. Certainly Calvinists in general would deny that middle knowledge is necessary or uncontroversial.

Third, Thomists, I believe, would also reject middle knowledge–and historically have–for a number of reasons, including the notion that it entails potentiality in God. The reason it would do so is because of the whole structure of modality–including possible worlds–which advocates of middle knowledge tend to put forward as well. If the assertion is that there is a different way that things God could have created, then that implies that there is a potential there–something that any Thomistic view of the world would deny. I believe the same point would go for Scholastic thinkers in general, but I’m not familiar enough with the range of scholasticism to say that is for sure.

All of this is not even delving into things like whether those who hold to simple foreknowledge would endorse middle knowledge. David Hunt, for example, in the aforementioned Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, also argues that counterfactuals of freedom required for foreknowledge are illogical. Frankly, I think any position of simple foreknowledge would have to deny middle knowledge because on simple foreknowledge the whole concept is just as superfluous and contrary as it is for theological determinists. After all, if we contend that God just knows the future, then there is little room for things like God’s knowledge of what creatures would do in varied situations: God just knows what the future is going to be. Again, I don’t know the range of thought within the simple foreknowledge position to say for sure, but I suspect the majority position would be to deny middle knowledge.

Now when I shared some of these thoughts with Pastor Matt, his response was to grant that open theists deny middle knowledge, but then later he also granted that some Calvinists do. My point is that even were these the only ones who denied middle knowledge, that would not qualify as being “uncontroversial.” But now, having demonstrated that it is theological determinists, Calvinists, some who hold to simple foreknowledge, open theists, and Thomists (and possibly others?) who would deny middle knowledge, I think that the point has carried: middle knowledge is not uncontroversial.

I say all of this as someone who thinks middle knowledge does exist. But I think that we need to confront the reality that Molinism–the position which most closely endorses middle knowledge–is itself highly controversial and hardly above criticism.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Middle Knowledge Misunderstood– Pastor Matt’s post on middle knowledge.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The Wheel of Time “Towers of Midnight” and “A Memory of Light” – Reflection from a Christian

memlight-sandersonjordanThe conclusion to the Wheel of Time series has arrived at long last. It is a worth finish (well, there are no endings, nor beginnings in the Wheel of Time… but it was an ending) to the sprawling epic fantasy. There are not enough  superlatives for me to describe how much I enjoyed the series. Here, we’ll discuss Towers of Midnight and A Memory of Light, the concluding volumes in the Wheel of Time. There are, of course major SPOILERS for the entire series in this post.

The Plight of the Outsiders

The last several books of the Wheel of Time series highlight at points the plight of those who are not main characters. Refugees, those who have had their homes destroyed, the people who are not often even referenced in other works of fiction. In Towers of Midnight, there is a poignant vision of the future, one in which the Aiel have been downtrodden and their power broken. A family of Aiel are starving and they beg for food from some people passing through what used to be their land. They show no mercy:

[The mother’s] tears did come then, quiet, weak. They rolled down her cheeks as she undid her shirt to nurse Garlvan, though she had no suck for him.
He didn’t move. He didn’t latch on. She lifted his small form and realized that he was no longer breathing… (1038-1039)

One wonders how often this kind of story plays out in our world. How easily we dehumanize those who are in need, and how easily we ignore them or disregard their need. Embedded in this sorrowful tale, we learn that there are always “outsiders”; always those in need, for whom we should be caring.

Disability?

Rand lost a hand earlier in the series, and it leads him to wonder about his own sufficiency as a person. A Memory of Light eloquently deals with this issue in a scene which depicts Tam, Rand’s adoptive father, sparring with Rand and forcing him to “let go.” As they spar, Rand admires his father’s swordsmanship and his ability to fight with one hand. He continues to realize that one hand may not be such a disadvantage in life and even uses his hand-less arm to block a bow. As the fight ends, the scene drives home the point:

Sweating, Rand raised his practice sword to Tam… Tam stepped back, raising his own sword. The older man wore a grin.
Nearby, standing near the lanterns, a handful of Warders [elite bodyguards of Aes Sedai–female magic users] began clapping. Not a large audience–only six men–but Rand had not noticed them. The Maidens [warrior women] lifted their spears in salute.
“It has been quite a weight, hasn’t it?” Tam asked.
“What weight?” Rand replied.
“That lost hand you’ve been carrying.”
Rand looked down at his stump. “Yes. I believe it has been that.” (312-313)

The fight has opened Rand to an awareness of his sense of loss, but also to a new sense of completeness. He has one hand, but that doesn’t make him less a man.

Fate or Free Will?

Throughout the series, the question of whether people are free in their choices or whether they are fated to have certain destinies is found front-and-center. The notion that all destinies are woven into a Pattern is used by some characters to argue for fatalism, while others believe the Pattern can be manipulated. In A Memory of Light, Egwene’s dream–a way of seeing into the future–provides a way for exploring this issue. Rand, Moiraine, and Egwene debate the meaning of a dream in which Rand is stepping into the Dark One’s prison, but there is not enough information to tell them the course of action they should take.

The debate suggests more about the world than may appear at first glance. It seems in the world of A Wheel of Time there is a tension between determinism and freedom, one which appears quite a bit in Christian thinking as well. How are we to forge our way in the world? Has everything been set before us in a Pattern, or are we able to choose our own destinies? Most importantly, A Memory of Light leaves the ambiguity there. The tension remains. Though Rand ultimately seems freed from the Pattern in some ways, it is a freedom which is never fully fleshed out. I think there is much to be said for this approach. One wonders whether the dichotomy of free/determined should be maintained, or whether more complexity exists in this world than that.

Evil and Good

When Rand confronts the Dark One in A Memory of Light, he comes to a point in which he is shown a depiction of the world without evil (679ff). It is a hideous place; the people are without the stories of their lives which shaped them in ways beyond reckoning. Bravery is impossible; as is conviction. The scene makes one wonder about the problem of evil–the notion that the existence of evil shows an omnipotent good deity does not exist–and various answers given to it. One prominent response to the problem of evil argues that evil may be used to make greater goods. Without the possibility of harm, there is no possibility of true bravery. Richard Swinburne is a well-known proponent of this response.

We live in a world which has been deeply harmed by evil. We also live in a world in which God has provided the answer to evil in the person of God’s Son. One day, God will wipe away every tear. We won’t live in the hellish nightmare of a world in which our characters have been sucked away from the elimination of all possible ills; but rather in a world that God has planned for us, a world of overpowering good.

Conclusion

The Wheel of Time series is easily my favorite fantasy series of all time. I read it through in the span of about a year. The books raise an enormous number of worldview issues, and they are also epic fantasy stories with gripping tales that will, I think, never let me go. It’s a saga of epic proportions, and one which I think any fan of literature should experience.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Popular Books– Take a look at the other posts I’ve written on major works of fiction.

Sources

Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson, Towers of Midnight (New York: Tor, 2010).

Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson, A Memory of Light (New York: Tor, 2012).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 4/3/15- Golden Son, Tyndale, Judaism, and more!

sketch-for-the-crucifixion-thomas-eakins

Sketch for the Crucifixion by Thomas Eakins

Today is Good Friday. Let us reflect upon the greatness of God and the power of the Son for our salvation. Amen!

Now, be sure you also dive into this reading material as I have collected it from all corners of the internet for you, dear readers. A broad array of topics is here for your reading pleasure.

Golden Son (Red Rising)– Golden Son is book two of a trilogy by Pierce Brown which is quite interesting. I reviewed the first book myself here. Anthony Weber’s look at the second book provides some solid insights into this YA novel and human nature.

Reject Jesus for Judaism?– A great question and answer about whether it is more reasonable to reject Jesus and embrace Judaism.

“Feminist” is not a Dirty Word– Too often, we see the word “feminist” and react against it with a whole slew of beliefs about what the word must mean before we ask the person who self-identifies as such what it does mean. Here’s a good read to get some insight into the matter.

Tyndale (Comic)- Who was Tyndale and why does he matter? Here’s a neat little comic that answers these and other questions.

Evaluating RC Sproul’s Objection to Presuppositional Apologetics at the Inerrancy Summit– Apologetic method is a debate I try to avoid generally because I think that we need to realize that different approaches will work better for different people and situations. I favor an integrated approach with different methods meshed together. Here’s a look at one objection to the presuppositional method and a response from a presuppositional apologist. What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

Book Review: “The Lost World of Adam and Eve” by John Walton

lwae-waltonJohn Walton’s latest book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve is primarily an exegetical attempt to get at what the Bible teaches about Adam and Eve. Walton applies his insights from the Ancient Near East (ANE) to the study of the Bible. Perhaps the central focus of the text, then, is the notion that unlike us, those who wrote the Bible and were its first audience would look not for material origins but rather functional origins and purpose. When applied to the topic of Adam and Eve, this yields a number of surprising conclusions about what the text is intended to mean.

Walton argues that the Genesis creation account does not specifically tell us how Adam and Eve materially came to be but rather is an account of God giving them their functions as the image of God, ushering in order against the chaos. His view is one which sees Adam as archetypical head of humanity rather than necessarily being the first ever human. Adam and Eve were chosen by God to become God’s representatives in the world.

Many intriguing arguments are put forward by Walton once he has established what is the central thesis–that the text is concerned with functional, not material origins. These include reading Genesis 2 as a sequel to rather than recapitulation of Genesis 1, the use of the term “very good” and “good” in the text, the meaning of “formed from dust” and from the rib, the archetypal meaning of Adam and Eve, the real existence of this couple, the priesthood of the couple in sacred space, our role as bringing order from disorder, the “serpent” in the Garden, and more. Each chapter is filled with compelling arguments and sometimes surprising conclusions.

Because the worldview of the ANE was not concerned with material origins, the questions we often ask of the text like “Were Adam and Eve the first humans?”; “Are we all descended from Adam?” and the like are questions which the text is not intended to answer. These are questions from our background, not from the background of the text. Thus, Walton argues that there can be much openness to the answers to these questions. When we come to the New Testament discussions of Adam and Eve, Walton (and the contribution from NT Wright) argue that this is why the notion of federal headship (though not necessarily material/genetic headship) is probably in mind.

Readers who are unconvinced by the notion that we should apply ANE insights to our reading of the text will be challenged to support that claim. Walton cogently argues that although there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between the worldview of the ANE and the Bible, it is highly questionable to assume that the writers and audience of the Bible would not have been influenced by their background and cultural understanding.

Regarding the science, Walton readily points out that he is not an expert in the area but defers largely to the experts. He applies the exegetical arguments to questions of original sin, federal headship, and the like in the context of  modern scientific findings, though he does so in such a way that he retains his commitment to teach what the text does rather than trying to force it to speak of our concerns.

Many (most?) readers will find this book challenging on a number of levels because Walton so readily exposes our presuppositions about what the text should say. Very often Walton simply points readers back to the text to reveal how often we have our expectations bring meaning to the text rather than allowing it to speak for itself.

The Good

+Excellent insight into the ANE background of the Old Testament
+Strong exegetical argument with a commitment to understanding the text
+Coherent with the rest of Walton’s thought
+Challenges our presuppositions about the text

The Bad

-A bit difficult to pin down exactly what his view is of original sin

Conclusion

The Lost World of Adam and Eve is a fantastic work and one which needs to be on the shelf of anyone interested in the topic. It is surprising, challenging, and frequently enlightening. Whether one agrees with Walton or not, this book is a must-read.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a review copy of the book courtesy of InterVarsity Press. I was not obligated to write any sort of review whatsoever. My thanks to the publisher for the copy.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Origins Debate– Read a whole bunch more on different views within Christianity of the “origins debate.” Here I have posts on young and old earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolutionism, and more!

Source

John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2015).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Adam and Eve and Inerrancy

lwae-waltonEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Adam and Eve and Inerrancy

Is it possible to deny the historicity of Adam and Eve and affirm biblical inerrancy? I’ve explored the issue of whether the historical Adam is a “gospel issue” before and concluded that it depends what is meant by the term. I was reading through John Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve and in his conclusion he had something to say about the issue of inerrancy and the historicity of the first couple. If someone wants to assert that denial of the historicity of Adam is denial of inerrancy, then they must:

…make the case that historical Adam is part of the authoritative message that the text provides… If someone were to contend that belief in a historical Adam was cultural… part of the framework of communication, then inerrancy would not apply… (201-202)

It is worth noting that Walton believes that Adam and Eve are indeed historical persons, though he believes they were archetypes rather than the only humans alive at the time or the first humans ever.

What do you think? Need we affirm a historical Adam in order to affirm inerrancy? Is there a burden of proof upon those who claim the two are necessarily linked? What is your view of the historical Adam?

Whatever your thoughts, The Lost World of Adam and Eve is a thought-provoking read worthy of your attention.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Is the historical Adam a Gospel Issue?– What happens to the Christian faith should it turn out to be the case that there is no historic Adam? Can one remain Christian and not believe in an historic Adam?

Source

John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2015).

SDG. 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,673 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,673 other followers