Dr. Donald Barnhouse on the Organic Inspiration of Scripture

I came across this passage in Dr. Barnhouse's The Invisible War which I found insightful in describing the doctrine of Verbal-Plenary inspiration to those who are unfamiliar. He writes:

"It is objected by some that the marks of human personality upon the writings of the various human authors indicate that the Bible is a human book. We would answer this with an analogy. The angel who announced to Mary that she would become the mother of the Messiah, heard the Virgin ask, "How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man?" The answer came: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). So the baby was born. He was the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. But He was not a Chinese baby, nor a Negro baby, nor a Nordic Aryan; He was a Jewish baby. The greatest glory of Israel was this: "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5).

Just as the Holy Spirit came upon the womb of Mary, so He came upon the brain of a Moses, a David, an Isaiah, a Paul, a John, and the rest of the writers of the divine library. The power of the Highest overshadowed them, therefore that holy thing which was born of their minds is called the Holy Bible, the Word of God. The writings of Luke will, of course, have the vocabulary of Luke, and the works of Paul will bear the stamp of Paul's mind. However, this is only in the same manner that the Lord Jesus Christ might have had eyes like His mother's, or hair that was the same color and texture as hers. He did not inherit her sins, because the Holy Spirit had come upon her. If we ask how this could be, the answer is that God says so. And the writings of the men of the Book did not inherit the errors of their carnal minds, because the writings were conceived by the Holy Spirit and born out of their personalities without partaking of their fallen nature. If we ask how this could be, again the answer is that God says so." (Barnhouse, The Invisible War Pg. 6)

This analogy, while not claiming to give a comprehensive vision of how the Spirit works in inspiration, is helpful in giving us a tangible example that we can relate to. Inspiration is analogous to the incarnation. Just as Jesus took a human nature onto His divine nature, so the Holy Spirit can use finite men in the writing of God's inerrant Word. There is no necessary problem with either of those truths, although our minds cannot completely comprehend either mystery.

The Law is Just (Pt. 2): Does Exodus 21:7-11 Promote Selling One's Daughter into Sex Slavery?

In my previous post I presented a general introduction to the Mosaic institution of slavery. Specifically, I dealt with the issue on whether or not slavery was viewed as more important than marriage, in ancient Israel, and also whether or not Moses advocates for the breaking up of slave marriages. As I demonstrated, if we keep in mind the high view of justice and restitution that revolved around the institution of slavery, and the voluntarism that was implicit in it, most of the claims made about the "horrors" of the Bible, as it pertains to slavery, dissipates. In fact, the Mosaic codes protect against abuses. When we approach our text today, a similar point will be made, but as it pertains to daughters who were sold into slavery/servant hood with the expectation that they will be married into the household. So what does the text say?

“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." (Exodus 21:7-11 NKJV)

If one is unfamiliar with ancient near-eastern culture, it is somewhat understandable as to why they would assume that this is talking about "sex slavery." In fact, there are plenty of Facebook memes out there making arguments to that effect. However, this is simply a case of not understanding, or not being willing to understand, time and place. There are three principles through which to view this verse and the culture that it made sense in. The first principle is a repeat from my previous post.

1) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution" (Ex. 21:26,27). Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13)

2) Families who were in debt, where the parents were not able to work, could knock out two birds with one stone by selling their daughter into slavery with the intention that she would marry into that family, who obviously were in a better financial position. This would bind the family who is in debt to a family who is more successful, and thus provide them with obvious social advantage. They would also be assured that their daughter would end up in a better situation. The daughter would first prove herself by being a faithful debt-bondage servant in the household for the time period allotted.

3) Women in the ancient near east do not necessarily have the same expectations of romance and relationships that women in our day do. Initially the principles above may seem harsh, legalistic, and purely economical. However, women back then would not necessarily view it that way. Even in our day where romance and personal choice are everything in relationships, people still pursue spouses for economic and social reasons one way or another. Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, love is not something that "happens," it is something that is developed and grows in the context of a binding social contract. In that, everything from a voluntary choice in marriage to arranged marriages are considered "biblical." The key issue in the biblical scheme is parental approval.

In light of those three principles, the nature of verses 7-11 become clear. This is not a verse about "sex slavery." The word "sex slave" is never used in the text, it is simply read into the context by those who are openly antagonistic to Scripture. A sexual slave would be antithetical to the ethics of the Mosaic law, as only sex within marriage is permitted and encouraged. Furthermore, the wisdom literature of Israel also strongly condemns fornication and prostitution. In light of principle 1) this was a move a family would make to better their situation and their daughter's situation, while also getting out of debt as principle 2) makes clear. If you look back at the law, it actually provides legal and economic protection for such a potential bride. If the the master who was engaged to her did not like her, he could not just sell her to foreigners to become a lifelong slave. She was to be sent back, or "redeemed." If he married her to his sons, and they left her, she was still to be treated as a daughter, not a slave. This verse protects women from abuse in its ancient near-eastern context. The Law is Just.

God and Creation: Why Monistic Idealism is Certainly False: A Review of Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos"

The last decade has seen a slew of books written by philosophical atheists, attacking the Christian faith as being irrational. Often what underlies such writings is a smug arrogance that ignores epistemological and metaphysical issues which trouble the naturalistic worldview. A dogmatic adherence to Darwinism, scientific positivism, and an epistemology of “atheism is more rational because I said so,” seems to be the flavor of the day for those who have deemed themselves “evangelical atheists.” However, this last October another atheist author published a much anticipated book denying such a worldview. Not only did he deny such claims, but said that they are fundamentally flawed and impossible. The name of the book is Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian view of Reality is Most Certainly False, and the author is famed philosopher Thomas Nagel. Dr. Nagel is well known for his others book which have been written in the areas of epistemology and ethics. He has caught much attention for being a committed atheist, yet antagonistic to the typical party line of the “free thought” intellectuals. In many ways Mind and Cosmos is a sort of magnum opus for his career, which pieces together a lot of his thought and reflections in light of a lifetime of study. This is why this work deserves careful attention from those in Christian circles, as there is much that can be drawn from the volume as it pertains to the defense of the faith. However, there is also a need for an apologetic response to the arguments and worldview that Nagel, as an atheist, promotes in this book. But first, let’s examine the value of Mind and Cosmos for Christian apologetics.

The Positives

In this volume, Thomas Nagel’s effectively dismantles the current anti-Christian paradigm from the inside out. He does this while maintaining his admitted theophobia, while in many ways also appearing to be “fighting for the angels.” He effectively deconstructs the current paradigm pertaining to four categories; the nature of science, consciousness, cognition, and ethics/values. In arguing from the nature of science he uses an argument that has been popular for decades with Christian apologists of all stripes, yet with the academic rigor that comes with his post. Essentially, he says that the nature of the scientific enterprise and scientific knowledge presumes upon certain characteristics of the universe and how it relates to the human mind. In the beginning of the book he clearly states his goal to propose a system “that makes mind central, rather than a side effect of physical law.” In making these arguments he is not just talking about individual human minds, but the concept of “mind” overall. He argues for such a metaphysic out of the very nature of human knowledge.

“In the meantime, we go on using perception and reason to construct scientific theories of the natural world even though we do not have a convincing external account of why those faculties exist that is consistent with our confidence in their reliability-neither a naturalistic account nor a Cartesian theistic one. The existence of conscious minds and their access to the evidence, truths of ethics and mathematics are among the data that a theory of the world and our place in it has yet to explain. They are clearly part of what is the case, just as much as the data about the physical world provided by perception and the conclusions of scientific reasoning about what would best explain those data. We cannot just assume that the latter category of thought has priority over the others, so that what it cannot explain is not real.” In other words, Nagel is arguing that the existence of science itself, and transcendental absolutes, is an empirical fact that needs to be explained to justify our endeavors. Naturalists cannot just shrug their shoulders and say “that’s just the way it is.” A project, such as science, requires a foundation. Nagel repeatedly reinforces throughout his books the idea that such cognitive dissonance amongst naturalists is not acceptable. Science needs an epistemological foundation in order to function and progress. The Christian worldview provided one such worldview centuries ago, but having been rejected by “the academy,” Nagel points out that the emperor no longer has any clothes. However, as we shall see, Nagel concurs with the Christ rejecting epistemology of the academy, and merely suggests another secular alternative. But Nagel points out further, that if naturalism cannot account for scientific knowledge, or provide it an epistemological foundation, neither can it do so with consciousness itself.

Consciousness

Nagel begins chapter three by immediately “pushing the antithesis” on naturalism’s relationship to human consciousness. He declares, “Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science.” In this chapter Nagel contributes what is most likely fresh material for many Christians who would reflect on these issues. In it Nagel deals with the identity theory of human consciousness. The identity theory is the preferred option of those who hold to a naturalistic worldview. The content of the theory can be found in its name; human consciousness is identical with various brains states. In other words, consciousness is an accident of brain chemistry, much in the same way that it just so happens to be that smoke rises up from fire. However, in all their attempts to make ‘A=B,’ as it pertains to consciousness and brain states, materialists have missed the glaringly obvious fact that by their nature they are two separate entities. Nagel says, “Materialists had to explain how “pain” and “brain state” can refer to the same thing even though their meaning is not the same, and to explain this without appealing to anything nonphysical in accounting for the reference of “pain.” He illustrates that in other realms of science, for example, it is valid to indentify H20 with Water. All that water is, is H20, whether water is present or experienced. But when we are talking about consciousness and experience itself, and trying to equivocate them with a physical description, we run into issues. “Experience of taste seems to be something extra, contingently related to the brain state-something produced rather than constituted by the brain state.” He goes through several mind experiments and analogies to demonstrate that mental states are indeed a non sequitur to brain states, and that current theories do not constitute a proper explanation. One example he brings to the table is the analogy of a calculator. In trying to understand a calculator, it does not follow that the calculator displays the numbers 8 when 3+5 are entered, as an explanation. There is certainly correlation but not necessarily explanation. Without the further fact that the calculator was designed to embody an arithmetic algorithm and to display its results in Arabic numerals, the physical explanation alone would leave the arithmetical result completely mysterious. It would give the cause of the figure that appeared on the screen, but would not explain the number as such. In other words, because certain brains states are associated with certain experiences, in no way “explains” those conscious experiences in their essence. Furthermore, no evolutionary theory adequately tells us what consciousness is, or why such a phenomenon would pop up in the long battle for survival of the species. So the scientific enterprise, and consciousness itself are an enigma, or an anomaly to current theories, and they cannot simply be brushed aside. Nagel provides much more juicy material in this chapter, which I can only recommend that you read yourself, in order to benefit from it. In the next chapter Nagel aims even higher, and sets his sights on the act of cognition itself.

Cognition

This chapter of Mind and Cosmos reflects most strongly the fact that Nagel has interacted with Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. His basic argument is that natural selection does not select for “truth.” In other words, there is no reason why the mechanism of “survival of the fittest” would produce creatures that could accurately ascend beyond the realm of mere appearances to “true beliefs” about reality. He write, “The natural internal stance of human life assumes that there is a real world, that many questions, both factual and practical, have correct answers, and that there are norms of thought which, if we follow them, will tend to lead us toward the correct answers to those questions.” Some may argue that it is necessary for advanced life to ascend to such a level of intelligence, since they operate in the real world and must contend with it. However, for mere survival, Nagel points out that it would only be necessary for creatures to perceive true appearances of reality. For survival, it would not be necessary to transcend to the level of true beliefs, universals, or “pictures” of reality. Even assuming that such is the case presupposes, in the first place, the real existence of certain transcendental absolutes which are above the particulars of the material universe. Furthermore, evolutionary theorists themselves are the subjects of such theorizing and presuppose that the picture of reality they have in their own minds is valid. “Therefore any evolutionary account of the place of reason presupposes reason’s validity and cannot confirm it without circularity.” This is the same argument that Plantinga has made against evolutionary naturalism, yet with the clarity and elegance that characterizes Nagel as an academic philosopher.

Eventually the attempt to understand oneself in evolutionary, naturalistic terms must bottom out in something that is grasped as valid in itself-something without which the evolutionary understanding would not be possible. Thought moves us beyond appearance to something that we cannot regard merely as biologically based disposition, whose reliability we can determine on other grounds. It is not enough to be able to think that if there are logical truths, natural selection might very well have given me the capacity to recognize them. That cannot be my ground for trusting my reason, because even that thought implicitly relies on reason in a prior way. Amen. Nagel concludes that cognition requires teleology for valid existence in creation. However he argues for teleology grounded in a Hegelian concept of mind slowly coming to self-awareness, rather than in the Triune God of Scripture.

Morality/Virtue

This is probably the area of Nagel’s book which is the weakest, as far as his own arguments go, as well as providing value for Christians in “pushing the antithesis” on naturalism. What is most striking about this chapter is that the whole concept of revelation is not only dismissed by Nagel, but completely ignored. Many non-Christian thinkers are completely ignorant of biblical revelation as a source of epistemology and metaphysics, and understandably so. Yet virtually all of them will recognize the religious case for “revealed” morality. However Nagel apparently ignores it all together. In considering the options, Nagel restricts himself to only subjectivism and realism in evaluating the origin of values and virtue. Subjectivism explains the truth or falsity of our value judgments in light of our own inner moral sense, whereas realism seeks to ground those judgments in our real circumstances. Nagel seems to affirm the value of both in a way, which is natural given his metaphysic of mind slowly become conscious of itself through the subjective experience of individual consciousnesses in concrete history. He argues that virtue/value comes from the “cosmic predisposition to the formation of life” and consciousness. In making his arguments he presupposes a humanist pleasure/pain value system as self-evident and the final court of appeals in terms of virtue. He writes:

[Y]et we can be motivated by the recognition that pain is bad, and that there is reason to do what will prevent it, whether for ourselves or for others. Such considerations can get us to resist the immediate, built-in motivation of present pleasure or pain, giving it only its objective value.

In making these arguments he does not provide a convincing foundation for his version of virtue to rest upon. How can he demonstrate that the human mind is not just projecting its own experience of pleasure and pain as a transcendental absolute onto the universe, claiming that it is binding upon sentient creatures? He offers no such demonstration, but merely draws out the implications of what he already assumes to be morality. Obviously, the Christian concept of morality is much more lofty and profound than the dichotomy of pleasure and pain as experienced by the creatures (although not mutually exclusive to it). Christianity affirms subjectivism and realism as they are subset’s of God’s revealed will. The moral law is written within, and the course of nature generally blesses the adherence to it. However, Nagel does argue that the mere concept of virtue contradicts a naturalistic account of reality. He argues, “we should think of ourselves as calling on a capacity of judgment that allows us to transcend the imperatives of biology.” In other words, the existence of virtue is a problem for naturalists, as Christian apologists have been arguing for decades.

Before we move on to “push the antithesis” on Nagel’s own system, and examine some of the negatives of his book, there is one more positive thing to say about his work. Even though he accepts a fundamental form of evolution, Dr. Nagel does creationists a service by legitimizing the Intelligent Design enterprise. He writes:

[e]ven though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves.

He says further, “[t]hey do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.”

We should be grateful that Dr. Nagel exhibits such intellectual honesty and academic courage, given his position. Despite that, there are multiple problems with this book, both from a general worldview assessment, as well as from a specifically Christian assessment of what he is promoting in this book.

The Negatives

While Nagel’s criticism of naturalism is strong and valid, the positive worldview statements he makes are often vague, confusing, and self-contradictory. Just as he “pushes the antithesis” on naturalism, exposing her nakedness as a philosophy, the same needs to be done with his atheistical monism. Nagel begins his discussion on the nature of science by denying that the human mind can comprehend the total picture of reality in any form. Christians can certainly amen this assertion, and much of what Nagel says fits in with what theologians refer to as the archetypal/ectypal distinction in human knowledge. Yet after placing a limitation on human knowledge and saying that naturalism can in no way accurately picture reality, he states that in finding the limits of science it “may eventually lead to the discovery of new forms of scientific understanding.” Lacking an understanding of the Archetypal knowledge of God mediated to us through the ectypes of revelation, Nagel collapses back onto the same man-centered epistemology, or scientism, he criticizes, yet in a different form. It is here that he first admits he is a philosophical monist. This put him in a dichotomy where he confidently that the elegance of monism is to be preferred over the dualism of theism, and yet he admits that apart from such an aesthetic preference, knowledge may very well be fragmentary. He says “perhaps, in the worst case, there is no comprehensive natural order in which everything hangs together-only disconnected forms of understanding.” So he states that monism is to be preferred because of its unifying nature, but then he goes on to say that such a standard of unity may in fact not square with reality. But there is a problem in that if knowledge is fragmentary, we could never come to the “unified” understanding that it was so in the first place. Nagel is clearly lost here, which is not surprising, given he is grounding knowledge in human rationality, rather than in divine rationality. Like Van Til observed about unbelieving thought, he lacks a foundation for certainty; therefore, his system is caught up between the opposite poles of absolute rationalism and absolute irrationalism. His desire for a unified mind behind everything is clearly a Christian motivation, which could find rest in the doctrine of divine simplicity, yet being an unbeliever he has no basis to assert that unity of thought reflects ontology, or is to be preferred. Nagel’s straw-manning of the Christian option, and preference for monism is problematic in several other areas as well.

First of all, Nagel spends a lot of time attacking materialism and naturalism, which are the very bedrock of evolutionary theory. He even admits that the research of ID theorists is compelling and deserves to be heard. But then he moves on to embrace a Hegelian form of evolution; but upon what basis? If evolution is problematic from a metaphysical, epistemological, and empirical standpoint (as he argues), then isn’t it time to start over? It becomes clear when going through Mind and Cosmos that Nagel has chosen autonomous human reason before even the mere possibility of a transcendent God and His verbal revelation. In light of his sober criticisms of naturalism he is only left with monism and a form of self-creation or emanation. Nagel does not create much of a positive case for these views; he merely chooses it as the only alternative between naturalism and his straw-manned version of Christian theism or “dualism.” Nagel paints a picture of the Christian view, as one in which the natural world exists autonomously and which God periodically enters into, in order to “tinker” with it. According to him, this undermines the coherence of nature and invokes complicated, unnecessary entities. However, in doing this, and in arguing for simplicity while using Occam’s razor, he is borrowing concepts that are implications of the doctrine of Divine simplicity. James Dolezal wonderfully defends this doctrine, in another excellent recent publication, God Without Parts. He defines it as, “[t]he doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that (1) God is identical with his existence and his essence and (2) that each of his attributes is ontologically identical with his existence and with every other one of his attributes.” The doctrine of Divine simplicity gives us the same elegance, or unity, while maintaining the doctrine of creation and intelligent design, yet avoiding the logical contradictions inherent in monism. Of course the most blaring contradiction in his system, as in Hegelianism in general, is the concept of self-creation or unfolding. When Nagel argues for teleology without mind, he is demanding a purpose that precedes mind. The purpose or “track” that the universal mind follows in its unfolding, must precede it, as the instances of history are what this mind experiences as if becomes increasingly self-aware through each particular. Such a mind is only aware of each stage of development as it happens, therefore it cannot precede and plan the events of history. How then can there be teleology? The universal mind that Nagel proposes suffers the same problem he illuminates for individual minds in history; how does such a mind rise beyond appearances to achieve “self-awareness” pertaining to some entity out there called “universal reason.” Wouldn’t such “reason” be yet another object that needs explanation, and through which the universal mind is explained and understood? Now we are stuck with a potential infinite regress and his argument that monism is more “simple” falls apart. It is merely a surface level mirage. Furthermore, monism hardly solves the problem of the one and many, as it merely brushes aside the reality of particulars. Even if a monist desires to argue that the particulars are merely illusory, they still have the fundamental problem that when speaking of particulars, they are still referring to a definite “thing.” This, and many other issues, renders monism as incoherent. But the Christian doctrine of a transcendent God who is simple, identical with His attributes and will, and whose will is eternal and comprehensive, solves these issues. However, Nagel has already set aside this concept of theism as being a “limiting concept” (an idea he gets from Kant, not the catholic faith) and dualistic, according to his Deistic straw-man of it. He writes, “So long as the divine mind just has to be accepted as a stopping point in the pursuit of understanding, it leaves the process (of science) incomplete, just as the purely descriptive materialist account does.” However at the end of his book he admits, “It is perfectly possible that the truth is beyond our reach, in virtue of our intrinsic cognitive limitations, and not merely beyond our grasp in humanity’s present stage of intellectual development.” Again the Archtypal/Ectypal and the Creator/creature distinctions in ontology would help him here if he would submit his mind to Revelation. But Nagel has revealed he is interested in no such thing. In the book Nagel makes the admission that contrary to his colleague, Alvin Plantinga, he has no “sensus divinitatus”. However, it is not simply that Nagel lacks a sense organ, it is that he is actively suppressing the truth. Romans 1 tells us:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to the, because God has made it plain to them.

Nagel has said before a more honest admission “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 the universe to be like that.” This is why he can actively expose the weakness of other non-believing worldview, all while ignoring the same issues in his own worldview; he is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is also why he must straw-man the Christian worldview. Yet he also borrows concepts from the Christian worldview, and from God’s active revelation to him (reason, logic, virtue, realism), all while denying their source. He even borrows content from special revelation, as mediated to him by his colleague Alvin Plantinga. Unfortunately, Plantinga has not helped in this matter as he does not own up to the source of his worldview, but follows many other Christian apologists before him who claim they are merely making “rational” arguments. In claiming that the clarity which God’s spoken word brings is merely common to all men, they give unbelievers a warrant to lift such arguments out of their Christian context and claim that they are purely secular observations. Presuppositional apologetics is much clearer and draws the line sharper in the antithesis, than Plantinga’s supposed “reformed” apologetics. Cornelius Van Til stated concerning unbelieving thought:

In the non-Christian outlook, the space-time universe exists and is intelligible apart from God; whatever happens is random, and facts are not preinterpreted, related, or controlled by a personal mind. Value stem from man himself or are somehow inherent in nature. The individual’s own mind thus provides the connections between himself, objects, events, or other minds-as well as contributing the (purely formal) principles or law by which he thinks and evaluates and by which he orders and interprets his experience.

Van Til’s statement here seems almost prophetic of Nagel’s position. However, Van Til didn’t have a crystal ball, he just understood how the unregenerate mind works. Herman Bavinck also has some rich observations about the nature of monism and pantheism:

Kleutgen, accordingly, is right on target when he writes: "The difference between pantheism’s speculations and that of the theist… is this: whereas the former starting with assumptions-as obscure as they are unprovable-about the divine being, ends in open contradictions; the latter, proceeding from a sure knowledge of finite things, gains even-higher kinds of insights, until it encounters the Incomprehensible, not losing its grip on the fact that the One whom it recognizes as the eternal and immutable Author of all things is far above our thought processes in his essence and works."

I’m sure if both Van Til and Bavinck were alive today, they would make almost the exact same statements in response to Nagel’s book of monism as well.

Conclusion

In the end, while this book is helpful, and in many ways will provide inroads for criticism of naturalism into the academy, it also presents us with nothing new. Unbelieving thought has been developing for quite some time in the West, and many of those who have rejected the faith have also rejected naturalism. All one needs to do is look at the popularity of eastern mysticism, and the monism behind it, as well as the new age movement to see that such is the case. In the end of his book, Dr. Nagel says that the answers may come from somewhere much more radical, or a version of his philosophy that is taken further, and I wonder if such occult options could end up being the more radical versions of Nagel’s philosophy for those who follow him. If Nagel and his followers bring us to an age beyond naturalism that will mean that the Christian church will have to be ready for some changes. Many of the epistemological arguments and transcendental arguments that reformed apologists use against naturalism will also be used by other unbelieving counterparts. This will mean that a lot of the worldview “defeaters” that reformed apologists use today will have to be modified and replaced in order to disarm the credibility of idealistic monism. We could find such potential in using the same presuppositional method against monism, but by reinvestigating the rich ontology which the Christian worldview provides. Doctrines like divine simplicity and the Creator/creature distinction will have to be rethought in light of popular monism, and formulated in a similar “street” level as the “transcendental argument” was in approaching naturalism. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity and the personal-relational nature of reality will also have to be reasserted and put on the offensive against the dehumanizing impersonalism inherent in monism. In the end though, we can be thankful for Nagel’s book, and as the popular unbelieving worldview potentially shifts, we must be encouraged to persevere in our mission to defend and “push-back” against claims “and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.”

The Law is Just (Pt. 1): Does Exodus 22:3-6 Condone the Splitting of Slave Families?

This is going to be the first installment in a series of blog posts I am titling "The Law is Just." The title pretty much summarizes my goal. I am going to be examining the case laws of the Old Testament in order to demonstrate that they are 1) completely reasonable in their ancient near-eastern context, and 2) are fully in line with the realities of a sinful people living amidst a holy God.

I am going to kick off this series by examining the first controversial case law one might come across if they are reading through the Torah. That is Exodus 21:3-6:

"If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:3-6 NKJV)

In many people's eyes, it is clear enough that the Bible "condones" slavery, which is problematic in light of what happened in this country's first century, and texts like this seem to only make matters worse for the Bible's credibility in our land. Does this text teach that slave families can be broken up, or that the institution is viewed as more important than marriage?

In answering that question we first need to consider three truths about Old Testament case laws, and case laws in general.

1) The purpose of case laws is always to give a real-life example of a principle of justice. Case laws are not rigid. Remember, Hebrew is more a visual language than it is an analytic language. It is great for story telling or writing narratives. Therefore, case laws often give us a "story" or an example of a principle of justice which can then be applied to other situations in a similar context. Remember, most of these laws would have to be memorized by judges, as well as the people, in order to be applied to the various situations of life. Because of that, they often deal with "worst case scenarios," or often give the maximum penalty for a crime, while not necessarily implying that the maximum penalty must be enforced.

2) The Old Testament has a very high view of civil restitution. The "eye for an eye" principle is used when it comes to restitution. This is not the same as the Code of Hammurabi, as the Old Testament does not, for example, prescribe that one should poke out their neighbors eye if he poked out yours. "Eye for an eye" was a euphemism in the time and place of the Old Testament for equity. When it came to property disputes, the principle was "eye for an eye."

3) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution (Ex. 21:26,27). Lifelong slavery only occurred with POWs and, as the last verse of our text recounts, with those who volunteered for it. Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13).

So case laws often give us a narrative of "worst case scenario," the Old Testament is strong on civil restitution, and slaves, while protected, were put in a lower social position. How do these principles help us in interpreting Ex. 22:3-6?

First, we must recognize, that the verse immediately prior to our text specifies that slaves were ordinarily only to serve for 6 years. The assumption is that if someone was a slave for life, they volunteered for it, and our text gives instructions on how a husband might do that if he married a woman who had already done that. Clearly, the implication is that the wife had voluntarily made herself a slave prior to their relationship. Keeping point 3) in mind, this meant that she agreed to that social position because, while it took away some of her rights, she saw it as a position providing security. Notice the hypothetical husband himself says that he "loves his master." This is clearly a master who loves his slaves, and takes good care of them. Keeping in mind point 1), clearly the implication is that if the wife was only a slave for a 6 year period, and he was released early, he had to either stay with her, or wait until she was released. That may sound harsh or cruel, but keeping in mind point 2), usually the slave is in debt to their master, and the Mosaic law has a high view of civil restitution. You must pay what you owe, to the full. However, nowhere in the text does it say the master has to follow these rules. If they desired to be merciful and let them go together, they were at liberty to do so. Compared to other ancient near-east slave codes, the Hebrews Scriptures are far above the norm, and protect from chattel slavery and other inhumane abuses. The law is just.

This text does not condone breaking up of slave families, in fact, the first few verses speak against this. The issue here is a "worst case scenario" where a debt-bondage slave marries a voluntary life-long slave. In that case, he can only stay with her if he becomes one as well, because she belongs to her master. Knowing this case law, the debt-bondage slave would have known what he was getting into marrying her. And the implication in the text is that the master is a kind and just one as well.

But that isn't the whole story. You see Christ not only "married" us in our slavery, he also then elevated us to being sons and daughters of God, as he was the Son of the master over the household.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come— In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’” (Heb. 10:5-7)

The book of Hebrews here is actually quoting Psalm 40:6, which in the hebrew literally says, "ears you have dug for me" where the book of Hebrews says "a body you have prepared for me." The image in the Psalm is of a slave becoming a life-long servant through having his ears dug with an awl, just as Exodus 21 prescribes. Hebrews 10 compares Christ's incarnation to this same voluntary servitude. You see, it's as if Christ said, "I love my Father, I love my bride, and I love my children," just as the husband does in Exodus 21. Therefore, Jesus became like one of us, yet without sin. He entered into our sin and servitude, paid for our sins, and provides the infinite work that we owe to God, in order to be with us and redeem us. Exodus 21 ultimately points to Jesus, who is the husband over the Church.

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Gal. 4:4-7 NKJV)

Dr. Richard Pratt on the Claim that the Bible Contradicts Itself

1) "The unbeliever has not examined the Bible and other resource materials enough to know that he has not simply misunderstood a passage which he thinks is contradictory. It is often the case that non-Christians call passages contradictory when just a little reflection shows them to be quite harmonious.

2) The unbeliever cannot examine the Bible and other resource materials enough to know that he has exhausted all the possible explanations of his so-called contradiction.

3) Until he can say with absolute certainty that there are contradictions in the Bible he cannot reject biblical authority on this basis." (Richard Pratt, Every Thought Captive, pg. 113

The thing I like about this response is that it is simple, honest, and addresses the skeptic right where he is at. Rather than allowing them to dictate terms out of their relative ignorance, points 1 & 2 demonstrate that according to their own standard of knowledge, they are overreaching. And indeed, some of the "Bible contradictions" I have been confronted with before, betray that very ignorance.

The Psychology of the POMO Sexual Revolution

As I mentioned in a previous post, the speed and aggression in which our culture is changing its sexual "mores," is simply a sign that our culture is under the wrath of God, and that we are witnessing Romans 1 before our very eyes. Yet I recognize that it would be very easy to read that statement and simply see it as an over-generalization at best, or as self-righteous pessimism at worst. Now of course, God's Word is to be trusted, and Romans 1 certainly applies to where we are at; but is there more going on in our cultural situation than the suppression of truth and the curse of God? Well yes, and no. If we look at the big picture, it certainly does not go beyond those twin realities. However, if we look closer at how our culture arrived at its position, and then compare that to what other Scriptures have to say about this subject, it is quite eye opening. In fact, not only will we find a sweeping condemnation of our culture's most cherished values, but we will also find that most American Christians stand under that same umbrella of values as well. So what am I referring to?

Well, recently I have been rereading Rosaria Butterfield's Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, with my wife. For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Butterfield is a former tenured English professor from Syracuse University, as well as a former lesbian activist. The book is subtitled, "An English Professor's Journey into the Christian Faith." She now is the wife of an RPCNA pastor and a homeschooling mother. I highly recommend her book, as obviously she has an insight or two into what is behind our modern sexual attitudes. In chapter two, she recounts the details of her conversion and presents a very insightful commentary on Ezekiel 16:48-50. In fact, Ezekiel 16 is often used by homosexual activists to argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but a lack of hospitality and piety. The text says:

“As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit. (Ezekiel 16:48-50 NKJV)

However, Mrs. Butterfield demonstrates that the message of this text is not mutually exclusive to the sin of Sodom being homosexuality. In fact, it actually fleshes out the mechanics of what Romans 1 is talking about. She writes:

"[...] We read here that the root of homosexuality is also the root of a myriad of other sins. First, we find pride ("[Sodom] and her daughters had pride"). Why pride? Pride is the root of all sin. Pride puffs one up with a false sense of independence. Proud people always feel that they can live independently from God and from other people. Proud people feel entitled to do what they want when they want to [...] Second, we find wealth ("fullness of food") and an entertainment-driven worldview ("abundance of idleness") [...] Third, we find lack of mercy (neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy") [...] Fourth, we find lack of discretion and modesty ("they were haughty and committed abominations before Me"). Pride combined with wealth leads to idleness because you falsely feel that God just wants you to have fun; if unchecked this sin will grow into entertainment-driven lust; if unchecked, this sin will grow into hardness of heart that declares other people's problems no responsibility or care of your own; if unchecked, we become bold in our sin and feel entitled to live selfish lives fueled by the twin values of our culture: acquiring and achieving [...] You might notice that there is nothing inherently sexual about any of these sins: pride, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy, lack of modesty." (Butterfield, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, Pgs. 657-658 (Kindle Ed.))

Indeed there is nothing sexual about these sins. But they are exactly what lies at the root of POMO sexuality. I found her comments on being "entertainment-driven" to be the most insightful, as many have argued that Television and digital media are the driving force behind Postmodernism. In fact, it is that cultural channel of communication (TV), which has been the most effective in promoting POMO sexuality. Many conservative social commentators have pointed to the fact that almost every Television show and movie now includes a likable gay character or an "equal rights" sympathetic theme. In a culture of ease and entertainment, it is easy to convince people to accept a behavior if you consistently represent it in a positive light, through their favorite means of amusement. After all, if life is all about having fun and enjoying oneself "in a positive way," than what could possibly be wrong with a behavior that is consistently portrayed in such a manner. Indeed, the interweaving of these POMO cultural values, with POMO sexuality, is practically indistinguishable. Butterfield goes on to conclude:

"Sexuality isn't about what we do in bed. Sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires. Sexuality is more a symptom of our life's condition than a cause, more a consequence than an origin." (Ibid., Pg 658 (Kindle))

Rejection of God's authority, and pride, go hand in hand. Out of that disposition men seek refuge and relief in the creation, and worship it above God. They then are driven to extremes to find the satisfaction in the world, which only God can give. Ezekiel 16 and Romans 1 are two sides of the same coin. But it is not just pagans who live this way. Christians are certainly not off the hook here. If we are honest with ourselves, these same underlying values motivate us as well. They just don't manifest themselves (yet) in the acceptance of POMO sexuality. (The shifting attitudes of evangelical college students, as documented here could be a hint of what is to come). For example, these same cultural values, which we often have conformed to, have lead us to fundamentally change our worship in ways that our forefathers would find abominable. DG Hart does an excellent job of comparing the motivations behind POMO sexuality to the motivations behind POMO worship, here. The cultural values that Butterfield exposes, are the exact same values that have warped our understanding of the first table of the law, just as much as it has warped the surrounding culture's understanding of the second table of the law.

We are inescapably a part of the surrounding culture, and if we aren't thoughtful about how we interact with it, we may find ourselves enveloped with it, and mirroring it. Sure, maybe in a slightly different manner, but the substance is the same. So as our culture continues to go the route that it is, we must not be content with simply resisting external manifestations of idolatrous cultural behavior. No, we must get under the surface and really understand what is making the culture tick, not only so that we can resist it in the world and in ourselves, but also so that we can better understand our neighbors and more effectively communicate the Gospel to them. As butterfield says "sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires." Those are what need to be addressed, and we must do so convincingly and compassionately.

On Rocks and Omnipotence

A popular retort frequently given to the Christian worldview is the question, "can God create a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it?" When I first heard this sound bite, to be perfectly honest, I pretty much scratched my head and couldn't quite get what the point was. Most people have heard this objection before, whether they be Christian or not. It has actually become a popular response to the transcendental argument for God's existence, which I've personally observed, or observed others using in debate. When skeptics are pressed with the fact that only God gives the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic, they quickly run to the "rock dilemma" in order to supposedly demonstrate that God Himself is unintelligible and self-contradictory. It goes something like this:

Question: Can God create a rock so big, that even he cannot lift it?

Premise: If God is omnipotent, that means he can do anything.

Answer 1) God can't create a rock that is so big that He can't lift it.

Implication 1a) Then God can't "do" everything.

Answer 2) God can create a rock so big that He can't lift it.

Implication 2a) Then He's not omnipotent

Conclusion: God's omnipotence is self-contradictory, thus making God's existence impossible. Therefore, God does not exist.

Initially this might sound impressive, but it is actually a house of cards. Let's set aside the Clark/Van Til controversy, on whether or not God is bound by the laws of logic, as that discussion isn't even necessary here. Supposedly, the unbeliever here has found incoherence in the attributes of God, namely, in the very definition of "omnipotence." However, what has happened here is that they have simply stacked the deck by redefining omnipotence in their premise. If you look back at the premise, omnipotence is being vaguely defined as the belief that "God can do anything." However, is that really what the definition of omnipotence is?

The answer is no. Omni, literally means "all" or "universal," whereas potent means "power," "influence," or "effect." Remember in science class when we learned about "potential energy?" Similar concept. So omnipotence literally means that God has all, or unlimited power, or force. So by definition, if God is omnipotent, than no object could ever be beyond His power. This is logically consistent, and perfectly understandable. However, by redefining "omnipotence" as the ability to "do anything," and not as referring specifically to force/power, the unbeliever gives himself wiggle room for a bait-and-switch. What do I mean? Well lets look back at the question, with a clearer definition of omnipotence.

Premise: If God has unlimited power, then nothing he creates can be beyond his power.

Answer: God could never create a rock beyond his power.

Conclusion: Uhm, what's the point again?

See, the skeptic is trying to claim that God's omnipotence leads to a contradiction. But all they have done is a bait-and-switch by including a contradiction in the demands of omnipotence, and then they cover it up with a pliable definition ("he can do anything"). In other words, they are demanding that God show he has unlimited power, by having limited power (being able to to create a rock so big, etc...). This makes no sense, and is definitely not a standard set by the divine attribute of omnipotence. So instead of setting forth the incoherent premise "if God has unlimited power, he must have limited power," they instead frame it as "if God has unlimited power, he must be able to do anything." That latter phrase, "he must be able to do anything," is left undefined and can pertain to all sorts of things beyond power/potency. In this case, it's a cover for them demanding He be able do something which contradicts the very concept of having unlimited power! It makes no sense. God's attributes do not lead to contradictions, but to clarity. The unbeliever includes a hidden contradiction in their premise, in order to make the conclusions appear contradictory.

If unbelievers really want to be wowed by what God is able to do, they should examine the two natures of Christ. That doctrine certainly transcends our created understanding of logic without contradicting it. We would expect that if the eternal, transcendent God of Scripture has condescended to man, he would introduce concepts that would stretch our finite apprehensions. The doctrine of the incarnation does just that. The second person of the Trinity took a human nature onto his divine nature, and united the two, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved," as the Chalcedonian Creed tells us. Find the largest rock that man is able to lift, and Jesus in His human nature could go no further. In fact, not only was Jesus limited in His human nature, but He Himself was also crushed by a much heavier weight. The weight of God's wrath. And He did it to redeem cosmic rebels, who make up silly syllogisms in order to escape their responsibility and guilt.

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." (Is 53:10)