J.W. Wartick
Question of the Week: Favorite “Worldview” Fiction
Each Week on Saturday, I’ll be asking a “Question of the Week.” I’d love your input and discussion! Ask a good question in the comments and it may show up as the next week’s question! I may answer the questions in the comments myself.
Favorite Worldview Fiction
I recently asked about favorite movies regarding worldview. I think that any time we interact with any portrayal of fiction, we still run into major questions of worldview. We should always be watching or reading or listening with a critical mindset, ready to interact on worldview-level questions. We love to read, but we need to do so in a way that acknowledges that “every story has a worldview.”
What is your favorite fictional book in regards to the way it interacts with worldview? Which worldview is presented? How might we learn from this presentation?
I know I’ve had many moments when I’ve finished a piece of fiction and just had to sit and think for a while afterwards. They’re wonderful times, and I think we’ve all had them. Let’s read about them in the comments!
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.
Question of the Week– Check out other questions and give me some answers!
SDG.
Really Recommended Posts 9/5/14- Jesus’ resurrection, logical fallacies, and more!
Well depending on if my child comes on time, I may currently be in the hospital with my wife and a baby being born today, as it is our due date! Thus, I may not respond right away to any comments. On the other hand, I may just be hanging out waiting for the baby (or he or she may come early!). So long story short keep my family in your prayers, if you please. This week’s posts include Jesus’ resurrection, logical fallacies, “The Unbelievers” movie, Michael Behe’s design argument, and Rob Bell and Oprah Winfrey.
Prior Probability of the Resurrection– David Marshall presents a lengthy argument related to the prior probability of the resurrection of Jesus. This argument is very important, and Marshall’s approach is one of many leading ways to argue for the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. This article has much depth and is worth the read.
How Not to Argue: The Problem of “Folk Fallacies”– It is easy to fall into the trap of Googling random fallacies and charging others with committing these errors. Here, some difficulties with pointing out an alleged stream of fallacies are pointed out. It’s a good post for apologists to consider.
Are “The Unbelievers” Unbelievable?– Here, Saints and Skeptics addresses several issues of “The Unbelievers” film, including its method, arguments, and conclusions.
A Pretty Sharp Edge: Reflecting on Michael Behe’s Vindication– Michael Behe’s argument for intelligent designed is based upon the concept of irreducible complexity. Check out this post which argues that his argument has been vindicated.
Rob Bell, Oprah Winfrey, and the missing Jesus– What happens when Rob Bell meets Oprah Winfrey? Check out this post for some interesting thoughts on the missing Christ in the conversation. See my own series of posts on Rob Bell’s Love Wins for some more reading.
Book Review: “Questioning the Bible” by Jonathan Morrow
Questioning the Bible
Is the Bible Anti-Intellectual?
What can we really know about Jesus?
How do we Know what the earliest Christians believed?
Why were some Gospels banned from the Bible?
Did the Biblical writers lie about their identity?
Has the Biblical text been corrupted over the centuries?
Are the Gospels full of contradictions?
Is the Bible unscientific?
Is the Bible, sexist, racist, homophobic, and genocidal?
What do Christians believe about the Bible?
Which interpretation of the Bible is correct?
Each of these questions is addressed through a number of means, and Morrow utilizes the latest scholarship in providing answers to these tough questions. Moreover, critical scholars like Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins are quoted and interacted with, which opens up avenues for more applications of the work to conversations.
Really, that’s what Questioning the Bible is intended for: a way to start conversations. The book is written for an introductory audience, but it is not ultra-light or lacking in content. There is an enormous amount of information packed into a small space in each chapter here, and that information will be invaluable to the reader tackling the above questions. It is also useful for those wishing to have the everyday conversations about faith that may come up.
Representative of Morrow’s approach is the chapter titled “Did the Biblical Writers Lie About Their Identity?” In this chapter, Morrow first provides a challenge from critical scholar Bart Ehrman. He then provides definitions of key terms like pseudonymity and pseudepigraphy. After that, he provides a critique of Ehrman’s position methodologically, and discusses how forgeries came into being and were recognized in the ancient world and the early church. He provides criticism in a way which is readable yet robust:
[W]e need to clearly state that the earliest Christians held to the thoroughly Jewish conviction… that God does not lie and he hates deception… Lying–even in the name of an apostle, done in love and for the greater good–would not be tolerated. (83)
These kinds of insights are found throughout every chapter, and can be immediately applied to everyday conversations about the faith. Finally, Morrow ends the chapter with a discussion of whether we can identify the authors of the Gospels with their traditional names/authors. Each chapter follows a similar format in that it outlines the issue, provides definitions, and then offers correction and expansion where needed.
Morrow writes with a tone that maintains interest, while explaining sometimes technical arguments in ways that the average reader can understand. Another strength of the work is the way that Morrow balances different Christian viewpoints on issues like creation. Rather than assuming only one viewpoint is possible, he presents several major viewpoints in a way which favors none but allows for open dialogue about origins.
At the end of each chapter there is a helpful section which summarizes three major thinking points from the chapter, provides tips for having conversations on the topic of the chapter, and provides recommended reading on the topic of that chapter. These are invaluable sections and sometimes even have little homework assignments which will allow readers to practice what they have learned. Questioning the Bible is therefore made into a very valuable study tool which may be used by small groups like youth groups or Bible study groups to explore some of the most common questions leveled towards Christians.
Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority
Disclaimer: I was provided with a review copy by the publisher. I was not obligated by the publisher to give any specific type of feedback whatsoever.
Source
Jonathan Morrow, Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority
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.
Book Review: “In Search of Moral Knowledge” by R. Scott Smith
R. Scott Smith’s In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy
Smith begins by providing overviews of various historical perspectives on ethics, including biblical, ancient (Plato and Aristotle), early (Augustine through Aquinas), and early modern (Reformation through the Enlightenment) systems. This survey is necessarily brief, but Smith provides enough information and background for readers to get an understanding of various ethical systems along with some difficulties related to each.
Next, the major options of naturalism, relativism, and postmodernism for ethics are examined in turn, with much critical interaction. For example, Smith argues that ethical relativism is deeply flawed in both method and content. He argues that relativism does not provide an adequate basis for moral knowledge, and it also undermines its own argument for ethical diversity and, by extension, relativism. Moreover, it fails to provide any way forward for how one is to live on such an ethical system and is thus confronted with the reality that it is unlivable. Ultimately, he concludes that “Ethical Relativism utterly fails as a moral theory and as a guide to one’s own moral life” (163).
For Naturalism, however, Smith contends the situation is even worse: “we cannot have knowledge of reality, period, based on naturalism’s ontology. Yet there are many things we do know. Therefore, naturalism is false and we should reject it not just for ethics, but in toto” (137). His argument for this thesis is, briefly, that naturalism has no basis for mental states–and therefore, for beliefs–and so we cannot have knowledge (see 147ff especially).
Various postmodern theses are also examined, including the highly influential views of Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas. Ultimately, Smith argues that there are several issues with these ethical positions, and primary among them is the difficulty that without any facts which are un-interpreted, there is no way to have moral knowledge, dialogue, or grounding (see 264ff, esp. 265; 277-278).
Finally, the book ends with Smith’s proposal for grounding moral knowledge: namely, Christian theism. First, he notes that there is a “crisis of moral knowledge” which is that it seems we really do have moral knowledge, but no solid basis for this knowledge. However, to solve the difficulty, we may find another ethical stance which can support this fact of moral knowledge. For supporting this thesis, he both presents arguments for Christian theism and notes the paucity of rival positions.
One major strength of Smith’s work is that he doesn’t merely outline or only critique the ethical systems with which he interacts. Instead, each system is allowed to present its theses on its own terms before Smith turns to a critical assessment. This is particularly evident in his interactions with Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas–each of whom has a dedicated chapter to their own systems and then a shared chapter of analysis and critique–but is the case in each instance of a system which he evaluates. This strength is increased when one considers the number of ethical systems Smith interacts with throughout the book. Although no work of this length (or any length, really) could be truly comprehensive, here is offered a broad enough variety of ethical theories that readers will be able to engage with those which are not mentioned.
There are tables scattered throughout the book which actually add quite a bit to the readability and argument. I commend Smith for a great use of these tools throughout the work.
I would have liked to see more development of the positive notion of exactly how Christian theism serves as the basis for moral knowledge. Smith does provide some clear insight into this, but it seems that after the significant development given to so many rival theories, the case for the Christian perspective could have gone deeper.
R. Scott Smith has accomplished an enormous achievement with In Search of Moral Knowledge both by providing an excellent survey and critique of relevant ethical systems and by coupling it with a positive case for a theistic–Christian–grounding for morality. The book can serve as an excellent text for a class on ethics, but may also be used by those interested in exposure to and critical insight into various ethical systems. Smith’s argument for Christian metaethics is compelling and strong, and his criticisms leveled against other systems–particularly naturalism and relativism–are crucial.
Disclaimer: I was provided with a review copy by the publisher. I was not obligated by the publisher to give any specific type of feedback whatsoever.
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!
Source
R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy
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!- Mythical Wars in the Bible?
Every 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!
Mythical Wars in the Bible?
I was reading through Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem and was surprised to come upon an essay which essentially argues that the narratives in Joshua were mythical retellings of the entry into Israel:
…Deuteronomy 7:1-5 is incoherent if read literally, for the command to kill all the inhabitants of the land is followed by an exhortation against intermarriage with them. In other words, in a “mythological” sense, Deuteronomy 7 itself encourages not so much annihilation of Canaanites as radical separation from them and their idolatrous practices–exactly as Joshua 23-24 exhorts. (163, cited below)
The essay was by Douglas Edwards, whose argument is essentially that Joshua does not recount actual events but rather a mythology with a specific purpose to show that God’s goal of placing Israel in the promised land was fulfilled. It’s an interesting perspective which helps make sense of some pointers in the narratives (and the fact that Judges follows Joshua with discussion of people who were allegedly exterminated in the prior canonical book).
However, I’m not convinced we may categorize the narrative as being a mythology, for it seems to have some clear historical claims about how, when, and where Israel entered into Canaan. Indeed, there are other essays in the same book which do not dehistoricize the text while also not putting forward genocide in the Bible.
What do you think? How do you interpret the texts which some take to mean genocide occurred in the Bible? How might one maintain Earl’s view and inerrancy, or can one not do so?
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)
Book Review: “The Myth of Religious Violence” by William T. Cavanaugh– I review the book which has led me to discuss the ways the category of religion is used to stigmatize the other and also forced me to rethink a number of issues. I highly recommend this book.
Source
Douglas Earl, “Holy War and Hesed” in Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem
SDG.
Question of the Week: Favorite Bible Book
Each Week on Saturday, I’ll be asking a “Question of the Week.” I’d love your input and discussion! Ask a good question in the comments and it may show up as the next week’s question! I may answer the questions in the comments myself.
Favorite Bible Book
There are some books of the Bible that we read fairly frequently. Others, we need to get more familiar with(check out this list of the “least read books of the Bible“. It’s a common question, but one that I’m curious about regarding my readers:
What’s your favorite book of the Bible? Bonus: Tell me why it’s your favorite.
Be sure to read the comments, as you might find a reason to read a book you don’t read frequently!
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.
Question of the Week– Check out other questions and give me some answers!
SDG.
Really Recommended Posts 8/29/14- Eschatology, Creationism, Morality, and more!
There is a lot of good reading to be found in this round of Really Recommended Posts. Be sure to leave comments on those you enjoyed and let me know what you thought here! The topics include eschatology, creationism, morality, Star Trek, and more!
Hitchens’ Challenge: Name one moral act that a religious person can do that an atheist cannot– Jason Wisdom takes on Christopher Hitchens’ challenge to name a moral act that is exclusive to a religious person. He challenges the core assumptions behind the argument, along with the notion of what it means to be “moral.” This is a great read.
Coexist? – A Pox On Both Bumper Stickers-This post is about more than you may think, so be sure to read it. Philosopher David Marshall takes on the “bumper sticker” mentality of both the “Coexist” bumper sticker and its negation.
Exceptional Dinosaur Tracksite in Denali National Park Reveals Herd of Hadrosaurs– Who doesn’t love to read about dinosaurs and creationism? Put your hand down, you, you’re lying! Check out this post which talks about how a rather awesome find of dinosaur tracks presents a challenge for a young earth paradigm.
What does the Bible say about “End Times”? Three Historic Perspectives– Eschatology is something of a side interest for me, and I found this post by J. Warner Wallace to be a pretty solid summary of a few major positions Christians hold regarding end times.
Some Tips on Research– The title pretty much says it all. These are some handy things to keep in mind while doing research.
Make It So- Parody of “Let it Go”– It’s no secret that I love Star Trek. I’ve discussed it on this site with theological/apologetic questions, and I’ve also had an ongoing series of reviews of TNG on my “alternate interests” site. Here, there is a parody of the song “Let it Go” based on Star Trek: First Contact. I thought it’d be a fun way to round out this week’s posts.
Book Review: “The Illustrated Guide to the 12 Apostles”
Let’s get this out of the way: it’s really hard to tell the disciples apart. They have similar names, they’re all lumped together usually, some are barely even mentioned, etc., etc. The Illustrated Guide to the 12 Apostles by Jeffrey Kranz and illustrated by Laura Converse Kranz is a free (!) e-book which seeks to solve some of these difficulties.
Each apostle has a pretty neat sketch drawing depicting them (which is largely conjecture), along with several icons and other images which help to distinguish between them. These are each individually helpful, and the icons and the like are based upon the few details mentioned about each apostle in the Bible.
The work surveys all the information we know for certain about the apostles as found in the Bible, while also noting other details we know from tradition and the like. For example, John is one of the most prolific writers of the Bible, as he authored Revelation, John, and 1-3 John as well. These details are extraordinarily helpful at distinguishing the various apostles from each other, and provide some sort of way to remember them as individuals rather than as a group.
The book is brief (55 pages) but packed with useful information. It’s a quick read that can also serve as a handy reference book related to the apostles. I highly recommend it, particularly at its (free) price. The book may be downloaded here. I would also very highly recommend you check out The Overview Bible, a web site dedicated to bringing general Bible knowledge to all. It’s very informative and the posts are all great reads.
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.
SDG.
Is the historical Adam a “Gospel” issue?
[Adam] must be a real individual who rebels against a clear divine directive at a specific moment in real time in a real place. (Barrick, 221, cited below)
One of the many issues which comes up related to the debate over the historical existence of Adam and Eve is the relation of Adam to Christ. Specifically: does undermining of the reality of Adam’s historical person undermine the work of Christ? Here, we’ll explore that question.
To be clear: we are not here exploring whether or not Adam really existed or whether there really was a real pair, Adam and Eve, from whom all humanity sprang. Rather, the question is this: if one denies the historical Adam and Eve, does one undermine the Gospel of Christ? Whatever one thinks of the answer to the question of the historical persons, one should consider the answer to this question as well. There are many issues to be addressed, so this post will only touch on a few. Write a comment to let me know your own thoughts or other issues you think of.
“Gospel” Issue?
In order to ask whether the history of Adam is a “Gospel” issue, we must first consider exactly what is meant by a “Gospel” issue. Definitions are important, and my own search for the meaning of this term yielded a whole range of definitions. Thus, I’m going to focus on a kind of working definition: to say something is a “Gospel” issue is to say that a specific doctrine, if untrue, undermines the Gospel [here meaning the glorious truth of salvation through Jesus Christ] and possibly one’s salvation itself. In the definitions I’ve found, and the use I’ve seen of this term, I believe this is an accurate understanding.
The Historical Adam as a Gospel Issue- Two Perspectives
The book, Four Views on The Historical Adam
the biblical description of sin depends entirely on the historicity of Adam. He must be a real individual… in real time in a real place… [denial of the historical Adam] has serious implications for the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of Christ… [quoting John Mahoney]: “If the first man is not historical and the fall into sin is not historical, then one begins to wonder why there is a need for our Lord to come and undo the work of the first man.” That makes the historicity of Adam a gospel issue. (Barrick, 221-222)
Barrick’s argument seems pretty clear: if no historical Adam lived and acted in the Fall, then what reason is there for Christ to come as the second Adam and restore humanity to God? If Barrick’s argument is successful, it does seem to establish that the historical Adam is indeed vital to an understanding of the truths of salvation.
Denis Lamoureux takes up the challenge of restoring confidence in the possibility of the Gospel without an historical Adam. His argument is instead that when “behaviorally modern humans” showed up (about 50,000 years ago), they broke their relationship with God (he does not make explicit how this may have occurred). Moreover, he argues that Barrick’s argument is unsuccessful because it is a non sequitor–the conclusion simply doesn’t follow. Is it really the case, Lamoureux asks, that the reality of sin “depend[s] entirely” upon a historic Adam (Lamoureux, 229)? Barrick’s argument was simply to appeal to the requirement for sin to be an action against God (itself a disputable claim–does sin really require action or is it possible to have [actually] sinful inclination?–but we’ll set that aside). Lamoureux notes that saying there was no historical Adam does not undermine or remove the reality of sinful activity.
Moreover, Lamoureux argues that Barrick’s argument conflates the historicity of Adam with the historicity of the resurrection (ibid). Not only that, but:
The gospel is about Jesus Christ, not Adam. The gospel is about the reality of sin, not how sin entered the world. The gospel is about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, not specifically Adam’s sin. (ibid, 229)
Adam and the Gospel
So is the historical Adam a “Gospel” issue? Returning to our definition, it seems to me fairly clear that one’s salvation is not determined by whether one believes in a historical Adam. The foundation of faith is Christ raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). Lamoureux is right to point out that the Gospel is ultimately the message of our salvation through Jesus Christ. The first part of our definition, however, asks whether the grounding for this salvation might be undermined. Romans 5:12-21 seems to demonstrate that Christ came to save humanity as the second Adam, and that a real person, Adam, really did sin and created the need for salvation.
Lamoureux’s counter to this is to argue that such statements are divine accommodation–that is, Paul did believe in a single, historical Adam, but that doesn’t mean there was one. The debate over this must wait for a different post, but for now I’ll just say that although I think there is divine accommodation in God’s revelation, I’m not convinced it involves allowing for very clearly false statements (such as the claim that Adam existed if Adam did not exist).
So if there is no historical Adam, it seems to me that this entails at least a denial of the specificity of the text in Romans 5. Thus, one could say that this undermines the basis for salvation. However, if one is willing to strip down to the bare bones of “Mere Christianity,” might one still preserve the Gospel? At this point I say yes. The basis for our salvation is belief in Jesus Christ, not belief in Adam. This does not mean that I think the historical Adam is unimportant or non-existent. Rather, I would say that anyone who does wish to say the historical Adam is necessary for salvation has yet to demonstrate that claim.
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!
What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.
Check out other posts on the origins debate within Christianity.
Sources
William Barrick, “A Historical Adam: Young-Earth Creation View” in Four Views on The Historical Adam
Denis Lamoureux, “Response from the Evolutionary View” in Four Views on The Historical Adam
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!- Is Natural Revelation Infallible?
Every 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!
Is Natural Revelation Infallible?
I’ve been reading through the free ebook A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison, and I came upon some interesting passages discussing natural revelation in the Reformed tradition (I’m Lutheran, so this is from an outsider). Mathison is keen to show that natural revelation–that is, that which God demonstrates through the created order–is capable of conveying truth. But his claim goes well beyond that modest level:
God’s revelation in creation is equally as infallible as His revelation in Scripture, because in both cases, it is God who is doing the revealing, and God is always infallible. (Kindle Location 208-212)
Mathison’s point, I think, well-taken. The fact is that natural revelation, if we assume is something God does, would be by definition infallible. After all, God cannot err. Thus, Mathison is correct. What I think is often missed in discussions about this and other topics related to creation is that although it is perhaps easier for humans to make mistakes when it comes to the natural world, it is quite possible (and obvious) that mistakes are made in interpretation of special revelation–Scripture–as well.
What do you think? Is natural revelation infallible? If so, what does this say about how we should interact on science-faith issues? If not, how does error creep in? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
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
Keith Mathison, A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture (Ligonier Ministries, 2013).
SDG.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 